Introduction: There is a lack of good quality economic evidence for the inclusion of pharmacists on hospital ward rounds in addition to, or as an alternative to, traditional ward-based clinical pharmacy services. There has been no systematic review of the cost or cost-effectiveness of pharmacists attending and contributing on ward rounds. Areas covered: A literature search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL and reported in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines in May 2019. As well, a search using Google Scholar and a targeted hand search were undertaken. Studies that reported any estimate of the cost or cost-effectiveness were included if pharmacist participation on inpatient hospital ward rounds was the predominant focus of the intervention. The identified studies were subsequently screened by three reviewers who extracted data on their clinical and economic design. A bias assessment was completed using the ROBINS-I tool. Expert opinion: Seven studies were identified investigating a clinical pharmacist's inclusion on hospital ward rounds where there was a cost estimated. However, none were deemed to be a full economic evaluation and all were found to be open to a serious risk of bias. Future evaluations should include a comparator group and investigate the cost and cost savings of the service, alongside their clinical outcomes.

中文翻译：

---

对临床药剂师在医院病房进行的费用和成本效益的系统评价。

简介：除了传统的基于病房的临床药房服务之外，或作为其替代方案，尚缺乏高质量的经济证据来证明需要将药剂师纳入医院病房。目前还没有系统地审查参加病房巡查并为病房做贡献的药剂师的成本或成本效益。涵盖领域：在Medline，Embase，Cochrane和CINAHL进行了文献检索，并根据PRISMA指南于2019年5月进行了报道。此外，还使用Google学术搜索进行了有针对性的人工搜索。如果药剂师参与住院病房巡回检查是干预的主要重点，则包括报告了任何成本或成本效益估计的研究。随后，由三名审稿人筛选了确定的研究，他们从中提取了有关其临床和经济设计的数据。使用ROBINS-I工具完成了偏差评估。专家意见：确定了七项研究，以调查临床药剂师在费用估计较高的医院病房中的纳入情况。但是，没有一个被认为是全面的经济评估，并且都被发现存在严重的偏见风险。未来的评估应包括一个比较组，并调查服务的成本和成本节省以及临床结果。但是，没有一个被认为是全面的经济评估，并且都被发现存在严重的偏见风险。未来的评估应包括一个比较组，并调查服务的成本和成本节省以及临床结果。但是，没有一个被认为是全面的经济评估，并且都被发现存在严重的偏见风险。未来的评估应包括一个比较组，并调查服务的成本和成本节省以及临床结果。