Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22348303›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2012

Interventions to reduce medication errors in adult intensive care: a systematic review.

Elizabeth Manias, Allison Williams, Danny Liew

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Elizabeth ManiasMelbourne School of Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. emanias@unimelb.edu.au
Allison Williams
Danny Liew

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Critically ill patients need life saving treatments and are often exposed to medications requiring careful titration. The aim of this paper was to review systematically the research literature on the efficacy of interventions in reducing medication errors in intensive care. A search was conducted of PubMed, CINAHL EMBASE, Journals@Ovid, International Pharmaceutical Abstract Series via Ovid, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycInfo and The Cochrane Collaboration from inception to October 2011. Research studies involving delivery of an intervention in intensive care for adult patients with the aim of reducing medication errors were examined. Eight types of interventions were identified: computerized physician order entry (CPOE), changes in work schedules (CWS), intravenous systems (IS), modes of education (ME), medication reconciliation (MR), pharmacist involvement (PI), protocols and guidelines (PG) and support systems for clinical decision making (SSCD). Sixteen out of the 24 studies showed reduced medication error rates. Four intervention types demonstrated reduced medication errors post-intervention: CWS, ME, MR and PG. It is not possible to promote any interventions as positive models for reducing medication errors. Insufficient research was undertaken with any particular type of intervention, and there were concerns regarding the level of evidence and quality of research. Most studies involved single arm, before and after designs without a comparative control group. Future researchers should address gaps identified in single faceted interventions and gather data on multi-faceted interventions using high quality research designs. The findings demonstrate implications for policy makers and clinicians in adopting resource intensive processes and technologies, which offer little evidence to support their efficacy.

Indexed as

AdultCritical CareCritical IllnessHumansIntensive Care UnitsMedication ErrorsPharmacistsPractice Guidelines as TopicProfessional RoleResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID22348303
PMCPMC3477343

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.