ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2011
Analysis of the quality of prescriptions at a cardiovascular ward in Brazil: a pilot study.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aim of studyTo analyze the quality of prescriptions in a hospital in Brazil.
methodsA cross-sectional pilot study of the quality of prescriptions of adult patients admitted at the cardiovascular ward. Data were collected with the help of a structured form developed by the researchers based on related literature, with items about medications and completeness of prescriptions. The form was divided into four categories of prescription quality indicators: prescription type, legibility and readability of handwriting, and completeness. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES 100 patients participated in the study, with ages between 20 and 94 years (mean of 67.12 ± 16.6 years), We analyzed 5,030 on 496 prescriptions for 100 patients. Of 11% the handwriting was considered to be less legible and 17% considered illegible. In terms of readability, a high incidence of medications were prescribed by their brand names (89%), and 13,707 abbreviations (mean of 27.6 per prescription) were used mainly to refer to the route of administration (31%), concentration (27%), and indications for use (20%). In relation to completeness, 471 (95%) prescriptions were considered incomplete, mainly medication data.
conclusionThe quality indicators used in this study revealed a high rate of prescription problems and errors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21404121What 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.