Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27504305›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2016

Evaluation of Hand Written and Computerized Out-Patient Prescriptions in Urban Part of Central Gujarat.

Anuradha Joshi, Jatin Buch, Nitin Kothari, Nishal Shah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2016. 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. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Quality of prescription writing in Brazilian primary health care.Primary health care research & development · 2023
    Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors.

Anuradha JoshiAssociate Professor, Department of Pharmacology, Pramukh Swami Medical College , Karamsad, Gujarat, India .
Jatin BuchGMERS (Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Medical College) , Gandhinagar, Civil Hospital Campus, Nr. Pathikashram, Sector-12, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India .
Nitin KothariAssistant Professor, Department of Pharmacology, Pacific Medical College & Hospital , Udaipur, Rajasthan, India .
Nishal ShahSecond Year Resident, Department of Pharmacology, Pramukh Swami Medical College , Karamsad, Gujarat, India .

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPrescription order is an important therapeutic transaction between physician and patient. A good quality prescription is an extremely important factor for minimizing errors in dispensing medication and it should be adherent to guidelines for prescription writing for benefit of the patient.

aimTo evaluate frequency and type of prescription errors in outpatient prescriptions and find whether prescription writing abides with WHO standards of prescription writing. MATERIALS AND

methodsA cross-sectional observational study was conducted at Anand city. Allopathic private practitioners practising at Anand city of different specialities were included in study. Collection of prescriptions was started a month after the consent to minimize bias in prescription writing. The prescriptions were collected from local pharmacy stores of Anand city over a period of six months. Prescriptions were analysed for errors in standard information, according to WHO guide to good prescribing. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Descriptive analysis was performed to estimate frequency of errors, data were expressed as numbers and percentage.

resultsTotal 749 (549 handwritten and 200 computerised) prescriptions were collected. Abundant omission errors were identified in handwritten prescriptions e.g., OPD number was mentioned in 6.19%, patient's age was mentioned in 25.50%, gender in 17.30%, address in 9.29% and weight of patient mentioned in 11.29%, while in drug items only 2.97% drugs were prescribed by generic name. Route and Dosage form was mentioned in 77.35%-78.15%, dose mentioned in 47.25%, unit in 13.91%, regimens were mentioned in 72.93% while signa (direction for drug use) in 62.35%. Total 4384 errors out of 549 handwritten prescriptions and 501 errors out of 200 computerized prescriptions were found in clinicians and patient details. While in drug item details, total number of errors identified were 5015 and 621 in handwritten and computerized prescriptions respectively.

conclusionAs compared to handwritten prescriptions, computerized prescriptions appeared to be associated with relatively lower rates of error. Since out-patient prescription errors are abundant and often occur in handwritten prescriptions, prescribers need to adapt themselves to computerized prescription order entry in their daily practice.

Indexed as

Prescription errorsPrescription writingPrivate practitioners

Identifiers

PMID27504305
PMCPMC4963665

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.