Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26701761›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Patient Safety in Medication Nomenclature: Orthographic and Semantic Properties of International Nonproprietary Names.

Rachel Bryan, Jeffrey K Aronson, Pius ten Hacken, Alison Williams, Sue Jordan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. A systematic literature review of LASA error interventions.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Linguistic Factors in Arabic for Miscommunication of Medication Names.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Using drug knowledgebase information to distinguish between look-alike-sound-alike drugs.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018
    Article
  10. Review
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

5 authors.

Rachel BryanSwansea University, Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom.
Jeffrey K AronsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Pius ten HackenInstitute for Translation Studies, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Alison WilliamsSwansea University, Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom.
Sue JordanSwansea University, Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConfusion between look-alike and sound-alike (LASA) medication names (such as mercaptamine and mercaptopurine) accounts for up to one in four medication errors, threatening patient safety. Error reduction strategies include computerized physician order entry interventions, and 'Tall Man' lettering. The purpose of this study is to explore the medication name designation process, to elucidate properties that may prime the risk of confusion. METHODS AND

findingsWe analysed the formal and semantic properties of 7,987 International Non-proprietary Names (INNs), in relation to naming guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) INN programme, and have identified potential for errors. We explored: their linguistic properties, the underlying taxonomy of stems to indicate pharmacological interrelationships, and similarities between INNs. We used Microsoft Excel for analysis, including calculation of Levenshtein edit distance (LED). Compliance with WHO naming guidelines was inconsistent. Since the 1970s there has been a trend towards compliance in formal properties, such as word length, but longer names published in the 1950s and 1960s are still in use. The stems used to show pharmacological interrelationships are not spelled consistently and the guidelines do not impose an unequivocal order on them, making the meanings of INNs difficult to understand. Pairs of INNs sharing a stem (appropriately or not) often have high levels of similarity (<5 LED), and thus have greater potential for confusion.

conclusionsWe have revealed a tension between WHO guidelines stipulating use of stems to denote meaning, and the aim of reducing similarities in nomenclature. To mitigate this tension and reduce the risk of confusion, the stem system should be made clear and well ordered, so as to avoid compounding the risk of confusion at the clinical level. The interplay between the different WHO INN naming principles should be further examined, to better understand their implications for the problem of LASA errors.

Indexed as

Patient SafetyTerminology as TopicDrug LabelingHumansLinguisticsMedication ErrorsPharmaceutical PreparationsSemanticsPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID26701761
PMCPMC4689353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.