Evidence Hub

Medication-related problems and contributing factors in patients with cardiovascular disorders in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Mengistie Yirsaw Gobezie, Nuhamin Alemayehu Tesfaye, Mulat Belete Demessie, Abel Andualem, Teklehaimanot Fentie Wendie, Minimize Hassen

Systematic Reviews, 2025

Abstract

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are a leading cause of mortality and disability globally. In Ethiopia, the management of CVDs faces significant challenges, particularly in addressing medication-related problems (MRPs). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the prevalence of MRPs among CVD patients in Ethiopia. The review followed the PRISMA guidelines and was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024501087). A comprehensive search was conducted across databases including PubMed, Hinari, Embase, and Scopus. Studies were included if they focused on the prevalence of MRPs among Ethiopian CVD patients, were observational in design, and were published in English. Quality assessment was performed using the JBI critical appraisal checklist. Data were analyzed using a weighted inverse random-effects model with subgroup analyses conducted based on various study characteristics. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic and further explored through univariate meta-regression and sensitivity analysis. From 405 potential studies, 22 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 5700 patient cases and identifying 7780 MRPs. The pooled prevalence of MRPs among CVD patients in Ethiopia was 74% (95% CI 66–81, I2 = 98.4%). The average number of MRPs per patient was 1.65 (95% CI 1.48–1.82, I2 = 98.3%). Common MRPs included patient noncompliance (18%), ineffective drug therapy (16%), and the need for additional drug therapy (15%). Polypharmacy, poor involvement in…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free