ArticlePharmacy world & science : PWS2010
Discrepancies between sources providing the medication histories of acutely hospitalised patients.
Article in Pharmacy world & science : PWS, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Factors influencing harmonized health data collection, sharing and linkage in Denmark and Switzerland: A systematic review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- The medication reconciliation process and classification of discrepancies: a systematic review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Pooled it
- Polypharmacy in Older Patients with Multimorbidity: The Agreement Between Patient and General Practitioner-Reported Drugs Observed in a Pilot cRCT.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Trial
- Medication Reconciliation as Part of Admission Management-A Survey to Improve Drug Therapy Safety in a Urology Department.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Understanding Engagement and the Potential Impact of an Electronic Drug Repository: Multi-Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Analysis of Requirements for the Medication Profile to Be Used in Clinical Research: Protocol Feasibility Studies and Patient Recruitment.BioMed research international · 2015Article
- Potentially inappropriate medication related to weakness in older acute medical patients.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2014Article
- Initiatives promoting seamless care in medication management: an international review of the grey literature.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2013Review
- Objective assessment of nonadherence and unknown co-medication in hospitalized patients.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to clarify the number and type of discrepancies between four medication sources as well as their potential clinical significance to the patient.
methodThe study was conducted as a cross-sectional study comprising all patients hospitalised with hip fractures in the Orthopaedic Surgery Ward at Amager Hospital. Data were collected from four sources. All information was counted, and the potential clinical significance of discrepancies was evaluated on a five-point scale. The four sources are: patients, the Personal Electronic Medication Profile (PEM), the general practitioner (GP) and the in-home care provider. A discrepancy was defined as any disagreement or omission of information between the four sources concerning name, form, strength and dose for each drug with which the patient was being treated.
main outcome measureThe number of discrepancies between the data sources.
resultsA total of 69 medications were registered for nine patients or an average of 7.7 medications per patient. 10.1 discrepancies per patient and 1.3 discrepancies per drug were registered. Two discrepancies were assessed as having potentially lethal clinical significance. Forty-one discrepancies were assessed as clinically significant, while 36 discrepancies were assessed as possessing minor clinical significance. The PEM added nine prescription drugs that no other sources mentioned. The addition of these medicines was largely clinically significant.
conclusionA total of 91 discrepancies were registered for nine patients. Two of these discrepancies were fatal and 41 were clinically significant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20446111What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.