Objectives Evidence-based pharmacy practice requires a dependable evidence base. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard of high-quality primary research, and tools exist to assist researchers in conducting and reporting high-quality RCTs. This review aimed to explore whether RCTs relevant to pharmacy are conducted and reported in line with Cochrane risk of bias and CONSORT standards, respectively. Methods A MEDLINE search identified potential papers. After screening of titles, abstracts and full texts, the 50 most recent papers were reviewed and assessment of bias according to Cochrane domains and compliance with CONSORT checklist items was recorded. Each domain of the Cochrane tool and CONSORT checklist item and each article were given a percentage score, reported as median and interquartile range (IQR). Correlation between quality of conduct, quality of reporting, continent of origin, and journal impact factor was conducted using the R 2 statistic. The median domain score for risk of bias by paper according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool was 53.0% (IQR 38.5-68.5), while the median compliance score by paper for the CONSORT checklist was 64.0% (IQR 36.0-94.0%). Key findings The median Cochrane domain and median CONSORT item completion scores, respectively, were 50.0% (IQR 33.3-66.7%) and 59.5% (IQR 52.0-70.3%). The highest risk of bias was associated with allocation concealment and blinding, and the least well-reported items were randomisation details, sequence generation and allocation concealment. A positive relationship between conduct and reporting of RCTs was found (R 2 = 0.75), while no correlation was found between quality of conduct or quality of reporting and journal impact factor, correlation coefficients (R 2 = 0.06 and R 2 = 0.05, respectively). Summary This review identified that issues related to randomisation and blinding are often inadequately conducted or not comprehensively reported by researchers conducting pharmacy relevant RCTs, providing useful information for education and future research.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective Currently, active surveillance systems to monitor adverse events following immunisation are limited to hospitals, and medical and immunisation clinics. Globally, community pharmacies represent a significant destination for immunisation services. However, until recently, pharmacies lacked active surveillance systems. We therefore wished to explore pharmacists’ experiences with SmartVax: an active surveillance system that has recently been integrated for use in Australian community pharmacies. Specifically, we wished to explore pharmacists’ perceived (1) benefits of using SmartVax, (2) areas for improvement in the system, and (3) issues with future/ongoing access to the system. Methods The present study forms the qualitative arm of a convergent mixed-methods pilot study. In the present study, we performed semi-structured interviews with pharmacist immunisers after a 21- to 22-week trial period with SmartVax. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts was performed independently by two researchers in QSR NVivo 12, using the framework method. Results Fifteen participants completed the semi-structured interviews. A broad range of perceived benefits were cited by participants, including the usability of SmartVax, the ease of patient follow-up facilitated by the system, and enhancement to the patient–pharmacist relationship. Participants voiced a desire for the system to have more granularity and a faster response time in the report generated for pharmacies. When asked about issues with future/ongoing access to SmartVax, cost concerns of the system were the prevailing theme. Conclusions The present study suggests that, among pharmacist immuniser end-users of SmartVax, the system is perceived to be easy-to-use, facilitates patient follow-up, and enhances the patient–pharmacist relationship.