RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: This review of the literature aimed to evaluate the economic impact of a clinical pharmacist in the orthopaedic sector. METHODS: The review followed the PRISMA recommendations. A bibliographic search was conducted on 23 June 2023 using PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. All articles in French or English with economic data on clinical pharmacy activities in orthopaedics were included. Articles not mentioning the term 'orthopaedics' and those published prior to 1990 were excluded. Data from the studies were compiled in an Excel table. A bias analysis using the ROBINS-I Cochrane tool was performed. The methodology of the studies was compared and weighted using the CHEERS and STROBE checklists. RESULTS: Among 529 articles initially identified, 10 were included in the review. The cost-benefit ratio of a clinical pharmacist in orthopaedics ranged from 0.47:1 to 28:1. The maximum savings reached US$73 410 /year in the American study and 1 42 356 /year in the French study. For three studies, the cost of a clinical pharmacist was not evaluated. Eight studies showed a positive economic impact. The Dutch study showed a balance and the Danish study showed a negative economic impact of 3442/month. CONCLUSIONS: This literature review has shown an economic benefit of a clinical pharmacist in the orthopaedic sector despite several biases and methodological limitations. The two studies that did not confirm this benefit only evaluated a limited number of expected benefits. Nevertheless, the economic impact of the clinical pharmacist in the orthopaedic sector seems positive and undervalued.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to review economic data on the use of closed system drug transfer devices (CSTDs) for preparing and administering hazardous drugs, and to evaluate the quality of data reporting as defined by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). METHODS: All references from a recent Cochrane review about CSTDs were evaluated for inclusion. A literature review was also conducted. Articles containing economic data about the use of CSTDs were retained for analysis. Two researchers independently graded the articles according to the 24-item CHEERS checklist. RESULTS: Of the 138 articles identified initially, 12 were retained for analysis. Nine of these studies did not report acquisition costs or did not detail acquisition costs. Six studies reported economic benefits associated with the used of CSTDs, all related to extending the beyond-use date. The mean number of CHEERS criteria fulfilled by the included articles was 9.2 (SD 2.4). CONCLUSIONS: CSTDs are costly to acquire. However, few studies have examined the economic impact of these devices, and the existing studies are incomplete. As a result, hospitals planning to implement these devices will be unable to make a sound economic evaluation. Robust economic evaluation of CSTDs is needed.