Chronic-pharma: New Platform for Chronic Patients Pharmacotherapy Optimization.

We describe the technological development of a web platform named CHRONIC-PHARMA that integrates three prescription support tools for patients with chronic diseases: Anticholinergic Burden Calculator (ABC), LESS-CHRON criteria and TRIGGER-CHRON. They focus on the optimization and evaluation of pharmacotherapy in patients with chronic diseases, resulting in a useful, single platform that can facilitate the review of pharmacotherapy and improve the safety of chronically ill patients. This is achieved by estimating and reducing the anticholinergic risk (ABC), detecting opportunities for deprescribing drugs and monitoring its success (LESS-CHRON criteria), as well as calculating the risk of adverse drug events (TRIGGER-CHRON). The platform is freely accessible online ( https://chronic-pharma.com/ ) as well as through a mobile application, and therefore easily accessible among the healthcare community.

Intervention effectiveness by pharmacists integrated within an interdisciplinary health team on chronic complex patients.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, it is difficult to establish a specific method of intervention by the pharmacist and its clinical repercussions. Our aim was to identify interventions by pharmacists integrated within an interdisciplinary team for chronic complex patients (CCPs) and determine which of them produce the best results. METHODS: A systematic review (SR) was performed based on PICO(d) question (2008-18): (Population): CCPs; (Intervention): carried out by health system pharmacists in collaboration with an interdisciplinary team; (Comparator): any; (Outcome): clinical and health resources usage outcomes; (Design): meta-analysis, SR and randomized clinical trials. RESULTS: Nine articles were included: one SR and eight randomized clinical trials. The interventions consisted mainly in putting in order the pharmacotherapy and the review of the medication adequacy, medication reconciliation in transition of care and educational intervention for health professionals. Only one showed significant improvements in mortality (27.9% vs. 38.5%; HR = 1.49; P = 0.026), two in health-related quality of life [according to EQ-5D (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions) and EQ-VAS (European Quality of Life-Visual Analog Scale) tests] and four in other health-related results (subjective self-assessment scales, falls or episodes of delirium and negative health outcomes associated with medication). Significant differences between groups were found in hospital stay and frequency of visits to the emergency department. No better results were observed in hospitalization rate. Otherwise, one study measured cost utility and found a cost of €45 987 per quality-adjusted life year gained due to the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: It was not possible to determine with certainty which interventions produce the best results in CCPs. The clinical heterogeneity of the studies and the short follow-up of most studies probably contributed to this uncertainty.

[Effectiveness of an intervention strategy in the biosimilar glargine prescription pattern in primary care]. / Efectividad de una estrategia de intervención en el patrón de prescripción del biosimilar glargina en atención primaria.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of specific interventions on biosimilar glargine insulin (BGI) prescribing in general practices and to analyse the influence of prescriber and economic impact. DESIGN: Non randomized controlled study. SETTING: General practices in 2 health areas of Seville, intervention and control group. PARTICIPANTS: 220 general practices (intervention group) and 100 general practices (control group). INTERVENTION: Intervention group received educational seminars on biosimilar drugs, pharmacotherapeutic bulletin and prescribing feedback. The study was carried out from the biosimilar commercialization, October-2015, to February-2016 (pre-intervention) and from February to August 2016 (intervention). MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of patients and DDD with BGI respect to total glargine before and during intervention for both areas were analysed. Physicians have been analysed by subgroups of age, sex, training, type of contract, years of experience and quota. MAIN RESULTS: Both indicators for intervention group were significantly greater than for control group (P<.0005), with a 95% confidence interval (2.5-4.7). The ratio of the percentage of cumulative increase of both variables between areas was 3.73 times higher after the intervention. No differences were found for the evaluated categories of physicians in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention strategies aimed at training and information, as well as monitoring health professionals, influence the pattern of prescription and can have an economic impact. Our results have not been influenced by the profile of the prescriber.

[Spanish translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the ARMS-scale for measuring medication adherence in polypathological patients]. / Traducción y adaptación transcultural al español del cuestionario ARMS para la medida de la adherencia en pacientes pluripatológicos.

AIM: Translate the ARMS scale into Spanish ensuring cross-cultural equivalence for measuring medication adherence in polypathological patients. DESIGN: Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and pilot testing. LOCATION: Secondary hospital. MEASUREMENTS: (i)Forward and blind-back translations followed by cross-cultural adaptation through qualitative methodology to ensure conceptual, semantic and content equivalence between the original scale and the Spanish version. (ii)Pilot testing in non-institutionalized polypathological patients to assess the instrument for clarity. RESULTS: The Spanish version of the ARMS scale has been obtained. Overall scores from translators involved in forward and blind-back translations were consistent with a low difficulty for assuring conceptual equivalence between both languages. Pilot testing (cognitive debriefing) in a sample of 40 non-institutionalized polypathological patients admitted to an internal medicine department of a secondary hospital showed an excellent clarity. CONCLUSIONS: The ARMS-e scale is a Spanish-adapted version of the ARMS scale, suitable for measuring adherence in polypathological patients. Its structure enables a multidimensional approach of the lack of adherence allowing the implementation of individualized interventions guided by the barriers detected in every patient.

[Interventions for improving adherence to treatment in patients with multiple pathologies: overview of systematic reviews]. / Intervenciones para la mejora de la adherencia al tratamiento en pacientes pluripatológicos: resumen de revisiones sistemáticas.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the available scientific evidence regarding the efficacy of interventions aimed to enhance medication adherence in patients with multiple chronic conditions (PMCC). DESIGN: Overview of systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were consulted (September 2013): Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CRD and WoS to identify interventions aimed to enhance medication adherence in PMCC, or otherwise, patients with chronic diseases common in the PMCC, or polypharmacy. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews of clinical trials focused on PMCC or similar were included. They should compare the efficacy of any intervention aimed to improve compliance to prescribed and self-administered medications with clinical practice or other interventions. DATA EXTRACTION: Information about the study population, nature of intervention and efficacy in terms of improved adherence was extracted. RESULTS: 566 articles were retrieved of which 9 systematic reviews were included. None was specifically focused on PMCC but considered patients with chronic diseases common in the PMCC, patients with more than one chronic disease and polypharmacy. The overall effectiveness of interventions was modest without relevant differences between behavioural, educational and combined interventions. Some components of these interventions including patient counselling and regimen simplification appear to be effective tools in improving adherence in this population group. CONCLUSION: There is a large heterogeneity of interventions aimed to improve adherence with modest efficacy, none in PMCC.

[Pharmacological treatment conciliation methodology in patients with multiple conditions]. / Metodología de conciliación del tratamiento farmacológico en pacientes pluripatológicos.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out a bibliographic review in order to identify the different methodologies used along the reconciliation process of drug therapy applicable to polypathological patients. DESIGN: We performed a literature review. Data sources The bibliographic review (February 2012) included the following databases: Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Spanish Medical Index (IME). The different methodologies, identified on those databases, to measure the conciliation process in polypathological patients, or otherwise elderly patients or polypharmacy, were studied. Study selection Two hundred and seventy three articles were retrieved, of which 25 were selected. Data extraction Specifically: the level of care, the sources of information, the use of registration forms, the established time, the medical professional in charge and the registered variables such as errors of reconciliation. RESULTS: Most of studies selected when the patient was admitted into the hospital and after the hospital discharge of the patient. The main sources of information to be highlighted are: the interview and the medical history of the patient. An established time is not explicitly stated on most of them, nor the registration form is used. The main professional in charge is the clinical pharmacologist. Apart from the home medication, the habits of self-medication and phytotherapy are also identified. The common errors of reconciliation vary from the omission of drugs to different forms of interaction with other medicinal products (drugs interactions). CONCLUSIONS: There is a large heterogeneity of methodologies used for reconciliation. There is not any work done on the specific figure of the polypathological patient, which precisely requires a standardized methodology due to its complexity and its susceptibility to errors of reconciliation.

[Translated article] Therapeutic management, adherence, and clinical outcomes of heart failure in Andalucía. ANDALIC Protocol.

Heart failure is a prevalent syndrome with high mortality rates, representing a significant economic burden in terms of healthcare. The lack of systematic information about the treatment and adherence of patients with heart failure limits the understanding of these aspects and potentially the improvement of clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical characteristics, therapeutic management, adherence, persistence, and clinical results, as well as the association between these variables, in a cohort of patients with heart failure in Andalusia. DESIGN: This study will be an observational, population-based, retrospective cohort study. Data of patients discharged from an Andalusian hospital with a diagnosis of heart failure between 2014 and 2023 will be extracted from the Andalusian population health database. ANALYSIS: The statistical analysis will incorporate the following strategies: (1) Descriptive analysis of the characteristics of the population cohort, adherence measures, and clinical outcomes. (2) Bivariate analyses to study the association of covariates with adherence, persistence, and clinical results. (3) Multivariate logistic regression and Cox regression analysis including relevant covariates. (4) To evaluate changes over time, multivariate Poisson regression models will be used. By conducting this comprehensive study, we aim to gain valuable insights into the clinical characteristics, treatment management, and adherence of heart failure patients in Andalusia, as well as to identify factors that may influence clinical outcomes. These findings could be critical both for the development of optimised strategies that improve medical care and quality of life of patients and for mitigating the health burden of HF in the region.

Reducing the drug burden of sedative and anticholinergic medications in older adults: a scoping review of explicit decision criteria.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the extent, characteristics, and knowledge gaps regarding explicit decision criteria for deprescribing drugs with anticholinergic or sedative properties (Ach/Sed) in older adults. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Original studies, clinical trial protocols, grey literature, and Summaries of Product Characteristics. METHODS: Searches targeting explicit decision criteria for deprescribing Ach/Sed were performed across MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science, including trial registries (clinicaltrials.gov, ICTRP, EU-CTR, ANZCTR) for pertinent articles, study protocols. Additionally, to encompass non-traditional or 'grey literature' sources, Google searches and relevant agency websites were explored, alongside the summary of product characteristics for Ach/Sed. RESULTS: The initial literature search identified 8,192 unique data sources. After review, 188 original articles or books, 79 internet sources, and 127 SmPCs were included. Examining these sources for explicit criteria for 154 Ach/Sed, overall, 1,271 explicit criteria guidance for identifying clinical scenarios warranting deprescription of Ach/Sed across 145/154 Ach/Sed were identified. These criteria were identified mainly from qualitative research and Summaries of Product Characteristics. Additionally, 455 criteria-based recommendations suggesting approaches for tapering implementation across 76/154 Ach/Sed were identified, mostly from sources classified as expert opinions. Significant heterogeneity was found across the approaches for tapering Ach/Sed. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of the literature providing guidance for clinical scenarios where Ach/Sed should be deprescribed and highlights the existing knowledge gaps regarding comprehensive guidance on tapering these drugs which warranties future research and development.

Therapeutic management, adherence, and clinical outcomes of heart failure in Andalucía. ANDALIC Protocol. / Manejo terapéutico, adherencia y resultados clínicos de la insuficiencia cardiaca en Andalucía. Protocolo ANDALIC.

Heart failure is a prevalent syndrome with high mortality rates, representing a significant economic burden in terms of healthcare. The lack of systematic information about the treatment and adherence of patients with heart failure limits the understanding of these aspects and potentially the improvement of clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical characteristics, therapeutic management, adherence, persistence and clinical results, as well as the association between these variables, in a cohort of patients with heart failure in Andalusia. DESIGN: This study will be an observational, population-based, retrospective cohort study. Data of patients discharged from an Andalusian hospital with a diagnosis of heart failure between 2014 and 2023 will be extracted from the Andalusian population health database. ANALYSIS: The statistical analysis will incorporate the following strategies: 1) Descriptive analysis of the characteristics of the population cohort, adherence measures, and clinical outcomes. 2) Bivariate analyses to study the association of covariates with adherence, persistence and clinical results. 3) Multivariate logistic regression and Cox regression analysis including relevant covariates. 4) To evaluate changes over time, multivariate Poisson regression models will be used. By conducting this comprehensive study, we aim to gain valuable insights into the clinical characteristics, treatment management, and adherence of heart failure patients in Andalusia, as well as to identify factors that may influence clinical outcomes. These findings could be critical both for the development of optimized strategies that improve medical care and quality of life of patients and for mitigating the health burden of HF in the region.

[Evaluation of the appropriateness of pharmacotherapy in patients with high comorbidity]. / Evaluación de la adecuación del tratamiento farmacológico en pacientes pluripatológicos.

OBJECTIVE: [corrected] To analyze the appropriateness of pharmacotherapy and, if necessary, carry out interventions for its improvement in a cohort of patients with multiple chronic conditions. DESIGN: Descriptive, prospective study of 21 months duration. LOCATION: Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with multiple chronic conditions included in a project for integrated healthcare. METHODS: The primary endpoint was the number of inappropriate treatments. To evaluate the appropriateness of pharmacotherapy, the specialist in hospital pharmacy followed a standardized procedure consisting of the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) questionnaire, modified as an implicit method, and the list of criteria of the Screening Tool of Older Person's Potentially Inappropriate Prescription/Screening Tool to Alert doctors to the Right (STOPP-START) as an explicit method. RESULTS: A total of 244 patients were included, with a mean age of 76 ± 8 (± SD) years. Half (50%) of the patients were men. The mean number of diagnoses per patient was 8 ± 3 (± SD) and 12 ± 4 drugs (± SD). A total of 840 inappropriate treatments were detected, most of them being due to the presence of interactions. The STOPP criteria most not complied with, were duplicate drug class, and prolonged use of benzodiazepines with long half-life or long-acting metabolites, and START for ACE inhibitors in chronic heart failure and statins and antiplatelets in diabetes mellitus, if one or more coexisting risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: We detected a large number of inappropriate treatments. This highlights the importance of evaluating the appropriateness of drug treatment in patients with multiple conditions. It is advisable to use a combined pharmacist intervention strategy that includes both an implicit method and an explicit method.

[Suitability of pharmacological treatment in patients with multiple chronic conditions]. / Adecuación del tratamiento farmacológico en pacientes pluripatológicos.

OBJECTIVE: To identify tools for measuring the appropriateness of drug therapy useful in patients with multiple chronic conditions. DESIGN: We performed a literature review. DATA SOURCES: The following database were consulted (December 2009): Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Spanish Medical Index (IME) to detect tools for measuring the appropriateness of treatment in patients with multiple chronic conditions, or otherwise elderly or polypharmacy. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were identified both qualitative and quantitative methodology, both theoretical and field work, both original and revised work and included work from all areas of the health system. 108 articles were retrieved, of which we selected 59. The consultation of their references include 20 jobs allowed, resulting in a total of 59 articles. DATA EXTRACTION: Of all the tools identified, the researchers performed a selection of those with possible utility for classified PP. The articles were classified into implicit and explicit methods and the characteristics of the field works were tabulated. RESULTS: We identified two implicit methods (MAI and Hamdy) and 6 explicit methods (Beers criteria, IPET, STOPP/START, ACOVE, CRIME and NORGEP). None was specific to patients with multiple chronic conditions. The questionnaire MAI, the Beers criteria and its modifications are most often used in literature. The advantages of explicit criteria means that many of them have been developed recently. CONCLUSION: There are several tools to measure the appropriateness and none of them has been designed for a population of patients with multiple chronic conditions yet, which by its nature requires a specific approach spreads.

Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: The Granada Statements.

Pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences embrace a series of different disciplines. Pharmacy practice has been defined as "the scientific discipline that studies the different aspects of the practice of pharmacy and its impact on health care systems, medicine use, and patient care". Thus, pharmacy practice studies embrace both clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy elements. Like any other scientific discipline, clinical and social pharmacy practice disseminates research findings using scientific journals. Clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy journal editors have a role in promoting the discipline by enhancing the quality of the articles published. As has occurred in other health care areas (i.e., medicine and nursing), a group of clinical and social pharmacy practice journal editors gathered in Granada, Spain to discuss how journals could contribute to strengthening pharmacy practice as a discipline. The result of that meeting was compiled in these Granada Statements, which comprise 18 recommendations gathered into six topics: the appropriate use of terminology, impactful abstracts, the required peer reviews, journal scattering, more effective and wiser use of journal and article performance metrics, and authors' selection of the most appropriate pharmacy practice journal to submit their work.

Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: The Granada statements.

Pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences embrace a series of different disciplines. Pharmacy practice has been defined as "the scientific discipline that studies the different aspects of the practice of pharmacy and its impact on health care systems, medicine use, and patient care". Thus, pharmacy practice studies embrace both clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy elements. Like any other scientific discipline, clinical and social pharmacy practice disseminates research findings using scientific journals. Clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy journal editors have a role in promoting the discipline by enhancing the quality of the articles published. As has occurred in other health care areas (i.e., medicine and nursing), a group of clinical and social pharmacy practice journal editors gathered in Granada, Spain to discuss how journals could contribute to strengthening pharmacy practice as a discipline. The result of that meeting was compiled in these Granada Statements, which comprise 18 recommendations gathered into six topics: the appropriate use of terminology, impactful abstracts, the required peer reviews, journal scattering, more effective and wiser use of journal and article performance metrics, and authors' selection of the most appropriate pharmacy practice journal to submit their work.

Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social Pharmacy Practice Research: The Granada statements. / [Artículo traducido] Mejora de la calidad de las publicaciones y avance en los paradigmas de la investigación en Farmacia Práctica clínica y social: la Declaración de Granada.

Pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences embrace a series of different disciplines. Pharmacy practice has been defined as "the scientific discipline that studies the different aspects of the practice of pharmacy and its impact on health care systems, medicine use, and patient care". Thus, pharmacy practice studies embrace both clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy elements. Like any other scientific discipline, clinical and social pharmacy practice disseminates research findings using scientific journals. Clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy journal editors have a role in promoting the discipline by enhancing the quality of the articles published. As has occurred in other health care areas (i.e., medicine and nursing), a group of clinical and social pharmacy practice journal editors gathered in Granada, Spain to discuss how journals could contribute to strengthening pharmacy practice as a discipline. The result of that meeting was compiled in these Granada Statements, which comprise 18 recommendations gathered into six topics: the appropriate use of terminology, impactful abstracts, the required peer reviews, journal scattering, more effective and wiser use of journal and article performance metrics, and authors' selection of the most appropriate pharmacy practice journal to submit their work. © 2023 The Author(s) Published by Elsevier Inc, Springer Nature, Brazilian Society of Hospital Pharmacy and Health Services, Elsevier Inc, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, Biomedcentral, Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (S.E.F.H), Pharmaceutical Care España Foundation, European Association of Hospital Pharmacists, Faculty of Pharmacy.

Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: the Granada statements.

Pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences embrace a series of different disciplines. Pharmacy practice has been defined as 'the scientific discipline that studies the different aspects of the practice of pharmacy and its impact on health care systems, medicine use, and patient care'. Thus, pharmacy practice studies embrace both clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy elements. Like any other scientific discipline, clinical and social pharmacy practice disseminates research findings using scientific journals. Clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy journal editors have a role in promoting the discipline by enhancing the quality of the articles published. As has occurred in other healthcare areas (i.e. medicine and nursing), a group of clinical and social pharmacy practice journal editors gathered in Granada, Spain to discuss how journals could contribute to strengthening pharmacy practice as a discipline. The result of that meeting was compiled in these Granada Statements, which comprise 18 recommendations gathered into 6 topics, namely the appropriate use of terminology, impactful abstracts, the required peer reviews, journal scattering, more effective and wiser use of journal and article performance metrics and authors' selection of the most appropriate pharmacy practice journal to submit their work.

Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: The Granada Statements.

Pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences embrace a series of different disciplines. Pharmacy practice has been defined as "the scientific discipline that studies the different aspects of the practice of pharmacy and its impact on health care systems, medicine use, and patient care". Thus, pharmacy practice studies embrace both clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy elements. Like any other scientific discipline, clinical and social pharmacy practice disseminates research findings using scientific journals. Clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy journal editors have a role in promoting the discipline by enhancing the quality of the articles published. As has occurred in other health care areas (i.e., medicine and nursing), a group of clinical and social pharmacy practice journal editors gathered in Granada, Spain to discuss how journals could contribute to strengthening pharmacy practice as a discipline. The result of that meeting was compiled in these Granada Statements, which comprise 18 recommendations gathered into six topics: the appropriate use of terminology, impactful abstracts, the required peer reviews, journal scattering, more effective and wiser use of journal and article performance metrics, and authors' selection of the most appropriate pharmacy practice journal to submit their work.

Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: The Granada statements.

Pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences embrace a series of different disciplines. Pharmacy practice has been defined as "the scientific discipline that studies the different aspects of the practice of pharmacy and its impact on health care systems, medicine use, and patient care". Thus, pharmacy practice studies embrace both clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy elements. Like any other scientific discipline, clinical and social pharmacy practice disseminates research findings using scientific journals. Clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy journal editors have a role in promoting the discipline by enhancing the quality of the articles published. As has occurred in other health care areas (i.e., medicine and nursing), a group of clinical and social pharmacy practice journal editors gathered in Granada, Spain to discuss how journals could contribute to strengthening pharmacy practice as a discipline. The result of that meeting was compiled in these Granada Statements, which comprise 18 recommendations gathered into six topics: the appropriate use of terminology, impactful abstracts, the required peer reviews, journal scattering, more effective and wiser use of journal and article performance metrics, and authors' selection of the most appropriate pharmacy practice journal to submit their work.

Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: the Granada Statements.

Pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences embrace a series of different disciplines. Pharmacy practice has been defined as 'the scientific discipline that studies the different aspects of the practice of pharmacy and its impact on healthcare systems, medicine use, and patient care'. Thus, pharmacy practice studies embrace both clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy elements. Like any other scientific discipline, clinical and social pharmacy practice disseminates research findings using scientific journals. Clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy journal editors have a role in promoting the discipline by enhancing the quality of the articles published. As has occurred in other healthcare areas (ie, medicine and nursing), a group of clinical and social pharmacy practice journal editors gathered in Granada, Spain to discuss how journals could contribute to strengthening pharmacy practice as a discipline. The result of that meeting was compiled in these Granada Statements, which comprise 18 recommendations gathered into six topics: the appropriate use of terminology, impactful abstracts, the required peer reviews, journal scattering, more effective and wiser use of journal and article performance metrics, and authors' selection of the most appropriate pharmacy practice journal to submit their work.

Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: the Granada Statements.

Pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences embrace a series of different disciplines. Pharmacy practice has been defined as "the scientific discipline that studies the different aspects of the practice of pharmacy and its impact on health care systems, medicine use, and patient care". Thus, pharmacy practice studies embrace both clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy elements. Like any other scientific discipline, clinical and social pharmacy practice disseminates research findings using scientific journals. Clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy journal editors have a role in promoting the discipline by enhancing the quality of the articles published. As has occurred in other health care areas (i.e., medicine and nursing), a group of clinical and social pharmacy practice journal editors gathered in Granada, Spain to discuss how journals could contribute to strengthening pharmacy practice as a discipline. The result of that meeting was compiled in these Granada Statements, which comprise 18 recommendations gathered into six topics: the appropriate use of terminology, impactful abstracts, the required peer reviews, journal scattering, more effective and wiser use of journal and article performance metrics, and authors' selection of the most appropriate pharmacy practice journal to submit their work.

Computerized clinical decision support systems for prescribing in primary care: main characteristics and implementation impact-protocol of an evidence and gap map.

BACKGROUND: Computerized clinical decision support systems are used by clinicians at the point of care to improve quality of healthcare processes (prescribing error prevention, adherence to clinical guidelines, etc.) and clinical outcomes (preventive, therapeutic, and diagnostics). Attempts to summarize results of computerized clinical decision support systems to support prescription in primary care have been challenging, and most systematic reviews and meta-analyses failed due to an extremely high degree of heterogeneity present among the included primary studies. The aim of our study will be to synthesize the evidence, considering all methodological factors that could explain these differences, and build an evidence and gap map to identify important remaining research questions. METHODS: A literature search will be conducted from January 2010 onwards in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full text, and abstract data. The study methodological quality and risk of bias will be appraised using appropriate tools if applicable. A flow diagram with the screened studies will be presented, and all included studies will be displayed using interactive evidence and gap maps. Results will be reported in accordance with recommendations from the Campbell Collaboration on the development of evidence and gap maps. DISCUSSION: Evidence behind computerized clinical decision support systems to support prescription use in primary care has so far been difficult to be synthesized. Evidence and gap maps represent an innovative approach that has emerged and is increasingly being used to address a broader research question, where multiple types of intervention and outcomes reported may be evaluated. Broad inclusion criteria have been chosen with regard to study designs, in order to collect all available information. Regarding the limitations, we will only include English and Spanish language studies from the last 10 years, we will not perform a grey literature search, and we will not carry out a meta-analysis due to the predictable heterogeneity of available studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This study is registered in Open Science Framework https://bit.ly/2RqKrWp.