Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorShaw, E
dc.contributor.authorBriscoe, S
dc.contributor.authorNunns, MP
dc.contributor.authorLawal, HM
dc.contributor.authorMelendez-Torres, GJ
dc.contributor.authorTurner, M
dc.contributor.authorGarside, R
dc.contributor.authorThompson Coon, J
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-23T12:57:14Z
dc.date.issued2024-02-24
dc.date.updated2024-02-23T11:53:13Z
dc.description.abstractObjectives: We aimed to map the systematic review evidence available to inform the optimal prescribing of statins and antihypertensive medication. Design: Systematic umbrella review and evidence and gap map (EGM). Data sources: Eight bibliographic databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, EMBASE, Health Management Information Consortium, MEDLINE ALL, PsychInfo, Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Science and Science Citation Index) were searched from 2010 to 11th August 2020. Update searches conducted in MEDLINE ALL 2nd August 2022. We searched relevant websites and conducted backwards citation chasing. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: We sought systematic reviews of quantitative or qualitative research where adults 16 years+ were currently receiving, or being considered for, a prescription of statin or anti-hypertensive medication. Eligibility criteria were applied to the title and abstract and full text of each article independently by two reviewers. Data extraction and synthesis: Quality appraisal was completed by one reviewer and checked by a second. Review characteristics were tabulated and incorporated into an EGM based on a patient care pathway. Patients with lived experience provided feedback on our research questions and evidence and gap map. Results: Sixty-eight reviews were included within the EGM. The highest quantity of evidence focused on evaluating interventions to promote patient adherence to antihypertensive medication. Key gaps included a lack of reviews synthesising evidence on experiences of specific interventions to promote patient adherence or improve prescribing practice. The evidence was predominantly of low quality, limiting confidence in the findings from individual reviews. Conclusions: This EGM provides an interactive, accessible format for policy developers, service commissioners and clinicians to view the systematic review evidence available relevant to optimising the prescribing of statin and antihypertensive medication. To address the paucity of high-quality research, future reviews should be conducted and reported according to existing guidelines and address the evidence gaps identified above.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 14, article e072502en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072502
dc.identifier.grantnumberNIHR200695en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/135377
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0002-6092-5019 (Shaw, Elizabeth)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupen_GB
dc.rights© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dc.subjectStatinsen_GB
dc.subjectantihypertensivesen_GB
dc.subjectmapping reviewen_GB
dc.titleWhat is the quantity, quality and type of systematic review evidence available to inform the optimal prescribing of statins and antihypertensives? A systematic umbrella review and evidence and gap mapen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2024-02-23T12:57:14Z
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from BMJ Publishing Group via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.descriptionData sharing: For access to documentation supporting this review, please contact L. Shaw.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalBMJ Openen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2024-01-31
dcterms.dateSubmitted2023-02-10
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2024-01-31
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2024-02-23T11:53:15Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2024-03-06T15:06:26Z
refterms.panelAen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. 
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/