led the panel discussion assessing both RCT and observational evidence instead of D.M.W. We included eligible studies from a systematic review comparing the effectiveness of pharmacist-managed AMS with other mod- The search was updated from 2015 onward and also to include studies evaluating AMS models other than those staffed by pharmacists, yielding a total of 29 observational studies.118-146 All studies included outcomes for patients on anticoagulants (mostly VKA) who received AMS care compared with those who received management coordinated by their regular health care provider. Five studies reported the effect of AMS care on ; 18 studies reported develop- ment of thromboembolic complications, including DVT and ; 19 studies assessed the risk of major bleeding118,120,122,123,129-132,134-138,140-143,145,146 ; and 19 studies measured TTR.118,122,124-129,132,133,135-138,140,141,145,146 One RCT reported on quality-of-life impairment during 30 days of follow- up using the EuroQoL instrument, whereas no observational studies reported on this outcome.147 Two observational studies assessed medication adherence for patients taking DOACs.130,139 The EtD framework is shown online at https://dbep.gradepro.org/profile/ B936B888-511A-8A14-A111-9B7DAF184C41. Benefits. For benefits, see the evidence profile in the EtD framework referenced at the end of the previous section, available online. Studies assessing mortality found no difference between those receiving AMS care and the care provided by their regular health care provider (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.51-1.85]; ARR, 1 fewer deaths per 1000 [95% CI, 19 fewer to 33 more per 1000]; very low certainty). 