SynthesisBMJ open2017
Systematic evidence review of rates and burden of harm of intravenous admixture drug preparation errors in healthcare settings.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Intravenous Medication Administration Errors in Hospitalised Patients: An Updated Systematic Review.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Pooled it
- Prevalence, Causes and Severity of Medication Administration Errors in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Drug safety · 2022Pooled it
- The Effect of Standard Concentration Infusions on Medication Errors in Neonatal and Pediatric Healthcare Settings: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Extemporaneous Compounding, Pharmacy Preparations and Related Product Care in the Netherlands.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- [Recommendations on standard concentrations for continuous infusion of medicinal products in intensive care units].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025Article
- Impact of a Bundle of Interventions on the Spectrum of Parenteral Drug Preparation Errors in a Neonatal and Pediatric Intensive Care Unit.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Factors influencing accuracy when preparing injectable drug concentrations in appliance with clinical practice: a norepinephrine case study.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2024Article
- Article
- Real-world study of the leakage of two types of infusion bags in multicenter pharmacy intravenous admixture service (PIVAS).Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Where do nursing students make mistakes when calculating drug doses? A retrospective study.BMC nursing · 2022Article
- Opioid-Free Anesthesia: Physico Chemical Stability Studies on Multi-Analyte Mixtures Intended for Use in Clinical Anesthesiology.Hospital pharmacy · 2022Article
- Prevalence and determinants of intravenous admixture preparation errors: A prospective observational study in a university hospital.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2022Observational
- Analysis of IV Drugs in the Hospital Workflow by Raman Spectroscopy: The Case of Piperacillin and Tazobactam.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The impact of pharmacist oriented mode on risk control in a Chinese centralized intravenous admixture service centre.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Advances in safe insulin infusions.Drugs in context · 2021Review
- Long-term stability of ready-to-use norepinephrine solution at 0.2 and 0.5 mg/mL.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2020Article
- The Magnitude of Medication Administration Errors among Nurses in Ethiopia: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of caring sciences · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine published evidence on intravenous admixture preparation errors (IAPEs) in healthcare settings.
methodsSearches were conducted in three electronic databases (January 2005 to April 2017). Publications reporting rates of IAPEs and error types were reviewed and categorised into the following groups: component errors, dose/calculation errors, aseptic technique errors and composite errors. The methodological rigour of each study was assessed using the Hawker method.
resultsOf the 34 articles that met inclusion criteria, 28 reported the site of IAPEs: central pharmacies (n=8), nursing wards (n=14), both settings (n=4) and other sites (n=3). Using the Hawker criteria, 14% of the articles were of good quality, 74% were of fair quality and 12% were of poor quality. Error types and reported rates varied substantially, including wrong drug (~0% to 4.7%), wrong diluent solution (0% to 49.0%), wrong label (0% to 99.0%), wrong dose (0% to 32.6%), wrong concentration (0.3% to 88.6%), wrong diluent volume (0.06% to 49.0%) and inadequate aseptic technique (0% to 92.7%)%). Four studies directly compared incidence by preparation site and/or method, finding error incidence to be lower for doses prepared within a central pharmacy versus the nursing ward and lower for automated preparation versus manual preparation. Although eight studies (24%) reported ≥1 errors with the potential to cause patient harm, no study directly linked IAPE occurrences to specific adverse patient outcomes.
conclusionsThe available data suggest a need to continue to optimise the intravenous preparation process, focus on improving preparation workflow, design and implement preventive strategies, train staff on optimal admixture protocols and implement standardisation. Future research should focus on the development of consistent error subtype definitions, standardised reporting methodology and reliable, reproducible methods to track and link risk factors with the burden of harm associated with these errors.
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.