[33] The proportion of participants who went on to get a positive diagnosis following Selleckchem GSK1120212 medical consultation was reported in 10 studies. Confirmed diagnoses ranged from 0.35% (n = unknown) in the tick test only (TTO) arm of a diabetes screening study[68] to 100% of those receiving further assessment following a respiratory screening intervention[25] (n = 11) or an osteoporosis intervention[63]

(n = 20). None of the included studies reported measuring sensitivity or specificity of the screening tools used. Five studies[25, 26, 36, 68, 69] reported other information relating to the accuracy of screening tests. In one blood glucose screening study,[69] pharmacy readings were found to be more precise compared to hospital wards, but less precise than

laboratories. Burton et al.,[26] in a study screening for respiratory abnormalities, evaluated the acceptability and reproducibility of the spirometry tests performed by pharmacists based on the American TAM Receptor inhibitor Thoracic Society recommendations. It was reported that the proportions of acceptable and reproducible spirometry tests performed by pharmacists were 66% (n = 93) and 86% (n = 80 of the acceptable results) respectively. In a similar study,[25] 73% (n = 63) of spirometry tests performed during pharmacy screening were judged by lung-function experts to be of acceptable quality, and all participants who complied with referral had their airway obstruction confirmed. The accuracy of a screening questionnaire administered by pharmacists to identify people with knee osteoarthritis[36] was reported to be 83%; 190 of the 228 referred participants Baricitinib met the criteria for knee osteoarthritis. Krass et al.[68] compared two tools for diabetes

screening; TTO which just involved a risk assessment questionnaire, and sequential screening (SS) which involved both the risk assessment questionnaire and capillary blood glucose measurements, carried out in pharmacies for participants who were found to have risk factors. Compared to TTO, the SS method achieved a higher rate of diagnosis (TTO = 0.2%, n = 2; SS = 1.7%, n = 8, P = 0.008). Twenty-six studies (52%) reported proportions of participants referred to primary or secondary care health providers and these varied from 2.1% (n = unknown) in a study screening for risk factors for respiratory disease[26] to 81% (n = 631) in a study about diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors.[37] Eleven studies (22%) reported rates of uptake of pharmacists’ referrals to other healthcare providers ranging from 12.8% (n = 767) in a SS intervention for diabetes[24] to 85% (n = 194) in an osteoarthritis screening initiative.[36] Snella et al.[37] compared referral uptake among participants screened in the pharmacy setting and those screened in non-healthcare settings.