Effect of pharmaceutical care interventions on glycemic control in patients with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Citations of this article
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.


Purpose: Diabetes is a chronic lifelong condition, and adherence to medications and self-monitoring of blood glucose are challenging for diabetic patients. The dramatic increase in the prevalence of diabetes is largely due to the incidence of type 2 diabetes in low-and middle-income countries (LMIc) besides high-income countries (HIc). We aimed to evaluate whether pharmacist care (PC) service model in LMIc and HIc could improve clinical outcomes in diabetic patients by performing a meta-analysis. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and ProQuest Dissertations Unlimited Published Literature database were searched to find publications pertaining to pharmacist-led intervention in patients with diabetes. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) randomized controlled trials, 2) confirmed diabetic patients (type 1 or type 2), 3) pharmaceutical care intervention by clinical pharmacist or/and multidisciplinary team, and 4) reporting HbA1c at baseline and end of study or the mean change in these values. Results: A total of 37 articles were included in the meta-analysis. The overall result was significant and in favor of PC intervention on HbA1c change (standard difference in mean values [SDM]: 0.379, 95% CI: 0.208–0.550, P<0.001). The stratified meta-analysis showed that PC was significant in both HIc (n=20; SDM: 0.351, 95% CI: 0.207–0.495) and LMIc (n=15; SDM: 0.426, 95% CI: 0.071–0.780). More than 6 months is needed to obtain adequate effects on clinical diabetes parameters. Conclusion: Our study presented that an adequate duration of pharmacist-led pharmaceutical care was effective in improving HbA1c in patients with diabetes in both LMIc and HIc.




Jeong, S., Lee, M., & Ji, E. (2018). Effect of pharmaceutical care interventions on glycemic control in patients with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, 14, 1813–1829. https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S169748

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free