Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23194349›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2013

Detection of medication-related problems in hospital practice: a review.

Elizabeth Manias

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

1 author.

Elizabeth ManiasMelbourne School of Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia. emanias@unimelb.edu.au

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review examines the effectiveness of detection methods in terms of their ability to identify and accurately determine medication-related problems in hospitals. A search was conducted of databases from inception to June 2012. The following keywords were used in combination: medication error or adverse drug event or adverse drug reaction, comparison, detection, hospital and method. Seven detection methods were considered: chart review, claims data review, computer monitoring, direct care observation, interviews, prospective data collection and incident reporting. Forty relevant studies were located. Detection methods that were better able to identify medication-related problems compared with other methods tested in the same study included chart review, computer monitoring, direct care observation and prospective data collection. However, only small numbers of studies were involved in comparisons with direct care observation (n = 5) and prospective data collection (n = 6). There was little focus on detecting medication-related problems during various stages of the medication process, and comparisons associated with the seriousness of medication-related problems were examined in 19 studies. Only 17 studies involved appropriate comparisons with a gold standard, which provided details about sensitivities and specificities. In view of the relatively low identification of medication-related problems with incident reporting, use of this method in tracking trends over time should be met with some scepticism. Greater attention should be placed on combining methods, such as chart review and computer monitoring in examining trends. More research is needed on the use of claims data, direct care observation, interviews and prospective data collection as detection methods.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHospitalsHumansMedication ErrorsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID23194349
PMCPMC3703223

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.