ArticlePloS one2016
Utility of an Algorithm to Increase the Accuracy of Medication History in an Obstetrical Setting.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Unintended medication discrepancies across key stages of the in-hospital medication process: a retrospective real-world study in hospitalized patients.BMC health services research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn an obstetrical setting, inaccurate medication histories at hospital admission may result in failure to identify potentially harmful treatments for patients and/or their fetus(es).
methodsThis prospective study was conducted to assess average concordance rates between (1) a medication list obtained with a one-page structured medication history algorithm developed for the obstetrical setting and (2) the medication list reported in medical records and obtained by open-ended questions based on standard procedures. Both lists were converted into concordance rate using a best possible medication history approach as the reference (information obtained by patients, prescribers and community pharmacists' interviews).
resultsThe algorithm-based method obtained a higher average concordance rate than the standard method, with respectively 90.2% [CI95% 85.8-94.3] versus 24.6% [CI95%15.3-34.4] concordance rates (p<0.01).
conclusionOur algorithm-based method strongly enhanced the accuracy of the medication history in our obstetric population, without using substantial resources. Its implementation is an effective first step to the medication reconciliation process, which has been recognized as a very important component of patients' drug safety.
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.