ArticleJournal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics
Prescription errors in cancer chemotherapy: Omissions supersede potentially harmful errors.
Article in Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A cross-sectional study: medication safety among cancer in-patients in tertiary care hospitals in KPK, Pakistan.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Prescription errors in cancer chemotherapy: Omissions supersede potentially harmful errors.Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeuticsArticle
- Authors' reply.Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeuticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate the frequency and type of prescription errors in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. SETTINGS AND
designWe conducted a cross-sectional study at the day care unit of the Regional Cancer Centre (RCC) of a tertiary care hospital in South India. MATERIALS AND
methodsAll prescriptions written during July to September 2013 for patients attending the out-patient department of the RCC to be treated at the day care center were included in this study. The prescriptions were analyzed for omission of standard information, usage of brand names, abbreviations and legibility. The errors were further classified into potentially harmful ones and not harmful based on the likelihood of resulting in harm to the patient. Descriptive analysis was performed to estimate the frequency of prescription errors and expressed as total number of errors and percentage.
resultsA total of 4253 prescribing errors were found in 1500 prescriptions (283.5%), of which 47.1% were due to omissions like name, age and diagnosis and 22.5% were due to usage of brand names. Abbreviations of pre-medications and anticancer drugs accounted for 29.2% of the errors. Potentially harmful errors that were likely to result in serious consequences to the patient were estimated to be 11.7%.
conclusionsMost of the errors intercepted in our study are due to a high patient load and inattention of the prescribers to omissions in prescription. Redesigning prescription forms and sensitizing prescribers to the importance of writing prescriptions without errors may help in reducing errors to a large extent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.