ASHP BCPS Recertification Module 1B Review
The clinical literature can be overwhelming at times. A few clinical studies might tout the benefits of a medication, only to have several other trials contradict the initial trials’ results. A meta-analysis is a useful way to look at sufficient detail of the trees (trials) to determine what clinical conclusion the forest plot (meta-analysis) provides. Meta-analyses are becoming increasingly popular. It is important for pharmacists to understand how to interpret meta-analyses and not immediately accept the author’s conclusions.
This BCPS recertification module focused on cardiology and meta-analyses. It was composed of two meta-analysis review articles, one meta-analysis, and one cardiology randomized controlled trial. The meta-analysis was interesting, as it was conducted to challenge a national guideline recommendation and SCIP measure that is followed by hospitals across the country. It was a well written meta-analysis that gave the added benefit of helping me stay current with the literature. A definite bonus!
It was a little strange reviewing the cardiology RCT because it didn’t fit with the meta-analysis theme, but it was a good review of heart failure. There were some questions related to the article that threw me off guard a bit. It was a nice challenge to think critically outside of the given materials.
Up next in June, moving from the heart to the lungs with a review of PE and pneumonia.
Twitter: @renagosser
#MetaAnalysis #BCPS #Recertification #Ambassador #Cardiology