Observations from a systematic review of pharmacist‐led research in solid organ transplantation: An opinion paper of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Immunology/Transplantation Practice and Research Network. Issue 7 (10th August 2020) - Pilch, Nicole A.
Abstract: Introduction: The contributions of transplant pharmacists to clinical and translational research in the United States are ill‐defined and have not been systematically reviewed. Objectives: The American College of Clinical Pharmacy Immunology/Transplantation Practice and Research Network conducted a systematic review of available pharmacist‐led research publications involving solid organ transplantation with the intent to quantify and describe pharmacist‐led research endeavors and their changes over time. Methods: An electronic search of Scopus was conducted to identify publications in the field of solid organ transplantation by pharmacist authors between January 1, 1975 and May 25, 2017. Articles were excluded if they were written in non‐English languages or originated from non‐US countries. Review articles, case reports, surveys, basic science research, pre‐clinical studies, and non‐transplant research were further excluded. Studies were categorized as one of four phases on the clinical and translational research spectrum, adapted from the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center description of a T1 to T4 classification system. Results: A total of 10 354 publications were identified by the systematic search with 547 full‐text English‐language publications included in the analysis. Pharmacists served as the first author in 87% of the articles and as the senior author in 67% of the articles. A total of 71% of the articles included more than one pharmacist author. Transplant pharmacists published more studies that employed a retrospective or observational study design (55% and 78%, respectively). A total of 37% of studies were funded. On the spectrum of clinical and translation research, pharmacists were most involved in T3 (translation to practice) research (72%), followed by T2 (translation to patients) research (23%). Conclusions: Transplant pharmacists are increasingly represented in the US literature and frequently published across domains. Further demonstrating the relevance of pharmacist‐delivered interventions and outcomes is a critical area of practice focus.