Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30073445›Full record

Trial reportJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2019

Validation of a mobile app for reducing errors of administration of medications in an emergency.

D Baumann, N Dibbern, S Sehner, C Zöllner, W Reip, J C Kubitz

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. The Internet, Apps, and the Anesthesiologist.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

D BaumannDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany. dbaumann@uke.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0236-7802
N DibbernDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.
S SehnerInstitute of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.
C ZöllnerDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.
W ReipDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.
J C KubitzDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medication errors occur frequently and are a risk to patient safety. To reduce mistakes in the medication process in emergencies, a mobile app has been developed supporting the calculation of doses and administration of drugs. A simulation study was performed to validate the app as a tool to reduce medication errors. This was a randomised crossover study conducted in the Academic Hospital. The participants included were residents and attendings in anaesthesiology. 74 Participants performed four simulation scenarios in which they had to calculate and administer drugs for emergencies. Two scenarios were performed with the app ("app scenarios") and the other two scenarios were performed without the use of the app ("control scenarios"). The order of drugs, simulation patients and usage of aid were randomized. The accuracy of administered drug doses were measured. Medications were categorised as either "accurate" ([Formula: see text]% of target dosage) or "wrong" (less than 50% or more than 200% of target dosage). The dosage calculated and the dosage administered were documented separately to differentiate between calculation and handling errors. During app scenarios, there were no "wrong" dosages, whereas 6.8 (95% CI 2.7-10.8%) of dosages in control scenarios were evaluated as "wrong". The probability of giving an "accurate" dosage was increased from 77.7 (70.9-84.5%) in control scenarios to 93.9 (90-97.8%) in app scenarios. Calculation errors were the main cause for wrong dosing. The app is an appropriate and feasible tool to reduce calculation and handling errors and may increase patient safety.

Indexed as

EmergenciesMobile ApplicationsPatient SafetyAdministration, IntravenousAdultComputer SimulationCross-Over StudiesEmergency Service, HospitalFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleManikinsMedication ErrorsReproducibility of ResultsSmartphoneCalculation errorsDosage errorsDrug errorsMedication aidMedication errorsMobile appPatient safety

Identifiers

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.