Objective: A systematic review of studies on pharmaceutical care research from June 1999 to June 2004 was carried out.
Method: Medline, Current Contents, Cochrane Library, IDIS, and Teseo were used as data sources. Works were categorized according to evidence levels and recommendation grades in clinical practice guidelines. The JADAD method was used for quality quantification.
Results: In all, 129 references were found; 19.4% (n = 25) were randomized studies; 2.3% (n = 3) had blinded assessors; losses to follow-up were documented in 7.8% (n = 10); 4.7% (n = 6) had a Jadad score= 3; 8.5% (n = 11), 14.7% (n = 19), 5.4% (n = 7), and 20.9% (n = 27) had evidence levels Ia, Ib, IIa, and IIb, respectively; 44.2% (n = 57) and 6.2% (n = 8) had levels III and IV, respectively; 23.3% (n = 30) had a recommendation grade A; 26.4% (n = 34) had a grade B; 44% (n = 55) had C and 6.2% (n = 8) had D. Most common study types included: descriptive (39.5%), trials including patients (32.6%), and reviews (17.8%); 59.5% of reviewed clinical trials were controlled, randomized clinical trials (CRCTs). Studies were double-blind in 7.1% of cases. Discontinuations and exclusions were recorded in 23.8% of cases. Randomization was appropriate in 11.9% of cases; 14.3% of clinical trials had 3 points, and 85.7% of studies were of poor quality.
Conclusions: Work methodology should be more rigorous. The use of universally accepted methods is needed to enhance the quality of studies (Jadad system, Consort list). The performance of observational, prospective, multicenter investigations allowing the effectiveness and efficiency of pharmaceutical care to be measured would be most beneficial. Works should measure health-related quality of life (SF-36 questionnaire) and patient satisfaction.