This study explored how Structured Medication Reviews (SMRs) are being undertaken and the challenges to their successful implementation and sustainability.

A cross-sectional mixed methods online survey.

Primary care in England.

120 clinical pharmacists with experience in conducting SMRs in primary care.

Survey responses were received from clinical pharmacists working in 15 different regions. The majority were independent prescribers (62%, n=74), and most were employed by Primary Care Networks (65%, n=78), delivering SMRs for one or more general practices. 61% (n=73) had completed, or were currently enrolled in, the approved training pathway. Patient selection was largely driven by the primary care contract specification: care home residents, patients with polypharmacy, patients on medicines commonly associated with medication errors, patients with severe frailty and/or patients using potentially addictive pain management medication. Only 26% (n=36) of respondents reported providing patients with information in advance. The majority of SMRs were undertaken remotely by telephone and were 21–30 min in length. Much variation was reported in approaches to conducting SMRs, with SMRs in care homes being deemed the most challenging due to additional complexities involved. Challenges included not having sufficient time to prepare adequately, address complex polypharmacy and complete follow-up work generated by SMRs, issues relating to organisational support, competing national priorities and lack of ‘buy-in’ from some patients and General Practitioners.

These results offer insights into the role being played by the clinical pharmacy workforce in a new country-wide initiative to improve the quality and safety of care for patients taking multiple medicines. Better patient preparation and trust, alongside continuing professional development, more support and oversight for clinical pharmacists conducting SMRs, could lead to more efficient medication reviews. However, a formal evaluation of the potential of SMRs to optimise safe medicines use for patients in England is now warranted.

Incretin-based drugs, including glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs) and dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 RAs, are increasingly used in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity. While these agents have shown cardiovascular benefits, their effects on both cardiovascular outcomes and cardiac structure and function remain uncertain—particularly in patients with and without a history of heart failure (HF).

We will conduct a systematic review and search major medical databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S)), as well as clinical trial registries from their inception and onwards to identify relevant randomised trials. The literature search is scheduled for July 2025. Two review authors will independently extract data and assess risk of bias. We will include randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of cagrilintide/semaglutide, liraglutide, semaglutide and tirzepatide in patients with and without a history of HF. The primary outcome will be cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes will include HF hospitalisation, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-diastolic volume and left ventricular end-systolic volume. Data will be synthesised by aggregate data meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, version 2, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE).

As this study is a systematic review based on secondary analysis of published data, ethical approval is not required. Findings will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

CRD420251003374.

Paediatric hospitalisation, encompassing the period from admission to discharge, often involves feelings of pain, fear and anxiety, primarily due to clinical diagnoses and, more significantly, discomfort and stress-inducing procedures. Numerous methodologies and interventions have been investigated and implemented to alleviate these phenomena during paediatric hospitalisation. Virtual reality (VR), for example, has demonstrated efficacy in pain relief for hospitalised children in recent studies. This systematic review, therefore, aims to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of VR in alleviating pain, fear and anxiety in hospitalised children undergoing painful procedures.

This systematic review and meta-analysis will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols guidelines. A systematic search will be conducted in March and April 2025 across the following databases, with no restrictions on language or publication year: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cumulated Index in Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies will include randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials involving children (aged 2–10 years) and adolescents (aged 10–18 years) who received VR interventions during painful procedures. Data will be managed and analysed using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.2.3). In cases of significant heterogeneity (I² > 50%), a random-effects model will be employed to combine studies and calculate the OR with a 95% CI. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework.

This study will solely review published data; thus, ethical approval is not required. This systematic review is expected to provide subsidies, evidence and insights into the use of VR. It is also anticipated that the results will directly impact the improvement of care for these patients and the qualification of professional care.

CRD42024568297.

Acute pain in the postoperative period of cardiac surgery is mostly treated with opioid analgesics. However, with the risk of adverse reactions and complications, strategies which do not involve opioid analgesics can be considered, such as aromatherapy. This systematic review aims to analyse the effectiveness of aromatherapy in relieving pain in post-cardiac surgery patients.

Two researchers will independently and simultaneously conduct searches and select studies from the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane (Library) and clinical trial registries (clinicaltrials.com), with no language or publication date restrictions. Randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials on the use of aromatherapy for pain relief in postcardiac surgery patients will be included. Then, two researchers will independently examine the studies based on inclusion criteria, extract data from the included studies and assess the risk of bias using the Risk of Bias 2 tool and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool from Cochrane. Data will be synthesised using Review Manager software. The strength of the evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The literature search, study selection, review and meta-analysis stages will be conducted from early October 2025 to April 2026.

This study is based on secondary data, and therefore ethical approval from a research ethics committee was not required. The results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

CRD42024568532.

Concussions can have significant implications on the health and quality of life of older adults. As most concussion research previously focused on children, athletes and military populations, there is a need to better understand the concussion-specific treatments for adults aged 65 and older. The aim of our systematic review is to review the existing literature on the effectiveness of concussion treatments on outcomes in adults aged 65 and older.

This systematic review will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and the Cochrane’s Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A comprehensive search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AgeLine, APA PsycNet and Cochrane CENTRAL) will be performed and reference lists of included articles will be searched. We will conduct a two-step screening process and data extraction. The data analysis will integrate a narrative approach with vote-counting. The risk of bias in the included studies will be assessed, and the quality of evidence for each outcome will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

The results of this systematic review will contribute to the current knowledge on concussion treatments and outcomes in older adults. This work is essential for identifying effective interventions and guiding future guidelines for this under-represented population. No ethical approval is needed for the review, and we plan to present the results at an international research conference and in a peer-reviewed journal. This protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD # pending).