Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11874397›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2002

Hospital prescribing errors: epidemiological assessment of predictors.

R Fijn, P M L A Van den Bemt, M Chow, C J De Blaey, L T W De Jong-Van den Berg, J R B J Brouwers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Does formative assessment help students to acquire prescribing skills?European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

R FijnGroningen University Institute for Drug Exploration (GUIDE), University of Groningen, Department of Social Pharmacy and Pharmacoepidemiology, Groningen, The Netherlands. R.Fijn@apoth.azg.nl
P M L A Van den Bemt
M Chow
C J De Blaey
L T W De Jong-Van den Berg
J R B J Brouwers

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo demonstrate an epidemiological method to assess predictors of prescribing errors.

methodsA retrospective case-control study, comparing prescriptions with and without errors.

resultsOnly prescriber and drug characteristics were associated with errors. Prescriber characteristics were medical specialty (e.g. orthopaedics: OR: 3.4, 95% CI 2.1, 5.4) and prescriber status (e.g. verbal orders transcribed by nursing staff: OR: 2.5, 95% CI 1.8, 3.6). Drug characteristics were dosage form (e.g. inhalation devices: OR: 4.1, 95% CI 2.6, 6.6), therapeutic area (e.g. gastrointestinal tract: OR: 1.7, 95% CI 1.2, 2.4) and continuation of preadmission treatment (Yes: OR: 1.7, 95% CI 1.3, 2.3).

conclusionsOther hospitals could use our epidemiological framework to identify their own error predictors. Our findings suggest a focus on specific prescribers, dosage forms and therapeutic areas. We also found that prescriptions originating from general practitioners involved errors and therefore, these should be checked when patients are hospitalized.

Indexed as

Dosage FormsDrug PrescriptionsHospitals, TeachingHumansLogistic ModelsMedication ErrorsRetrospective StudiesDosage Forms

Identifiers

PMID11874397
PMCPMC1874319

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.