Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23818992›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2013

Drug administration errors in hospital inpatients: a systematic review.

Sarah Berdot, Florence Gillaizeau, Thibaut Caruba, Patrice Prognon, Pierre Durieux, Brigitte Sabatier

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03062852 (Prévention Des Erreurs médicamenteuses liées Aux Interruptions de tâches Des Soignants Lors de la préparation et de l'Administration Des médicaments), which is not on this map. Cited by 46 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 6 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.

NCT03062852 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Prévention Des Erreurs médicamenteuses liées Aux Interruptions de tâches Des Soignants Lors de la préparation et de l'Administration Des médicaments : Essai contrôlé randomisé Multicentrique en Clusters

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisRan2017 to 2018Enrolled15,000ConditionsMedication Administered in ErrorArmsMedication safety vest
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Automation of in-hospital pharmacy dispensing: a systematic review.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  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

6 authors.

Sarah BerdotDepartment of Pharmacy, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
Florence Gillaizeau
Thibaut Caruba
Patrice Prognon
Pierre Durieux
Brigitte Sabatier

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextDrug administration in the hospital setting is the last barrier before a possible error reaches the patient.

objectivesWe aimed to analyze the prevalence and nature of administration error rate detected by the observation method. DATA SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library from 1966 to December 2011 and reference lists of included studies. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies, cross-sectional studies, before-and-after studies, and randomized controlled trials that measured the rate of administration errors in inpatients were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers (senior pharmacists) independently identified studies for inclusion. One reviewer extracted the data; the second reviewer checked the data. The main outcome was the error rate calculated as being the number of errors without wrong time errors divided by the Total Opportunity for Errors (TOE, sum of the total number of doses ordered plus the unordered doses given), and multiplied by 100. For studies that reported it, clinical impact was reclassified into four categories from fatal to minor or no impact. Due to a large heterogeneity, results were expressed as median values (interquartile range, IQR), according to their study design.

resultsAmong 2088 studies, a total of 52 reported TOE. Most of the studies were cross-sectional studies (N=46). The median error rate without wrong time errors for the cross-sectional studies using TOE was 10.5% [IQR: 7.3%-21.7%]. No fatal error was observed and most errors were classified as minor in the 18 studies in which clinical impact was analyzed. We did not find any evidence of publication bias.

conclusionsAdministration errors are frequent among inpatients. The median error rate without wrong time errors for the cross-sectional studies using TOE was about 10%. A standardization of administration error rate using the same denominator (TOE), numerator and types of errors is essential for further publications.

Indexed as

Cross-Sectional StudiesHospitalsHumansInpatientsMedication ErrorsObservational Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID23818992
PMCPMC3688612

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.