ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2017
Characteristics That May Help in the Identification of Potentially Confusing Proprietary Drug Names.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transforming clinical reasoning-the role of AI in supporting human cognitive limitations.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
- Linguistic Analysis of Generic-Generic Drug Name Pairs Prone to Wrong-Drug Errors for which Tall-Man Lettering is Recommended.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2023Article
- Reminding staff of diligence during the medication process is not enough to ensure safety: Learning from wrong fluid product selection incidents in the care of critically ill patients.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2022Article
- Identification and safe storage of look-alike, sound-alike medicines in automated dispensing cabinets.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2021Article
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
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to provide a descriptive analysis of characteristics that are common among drug name pairs involved in name confusion medication errors.
methodsWe evaluated drug name pairs that contained at least one proprietary name from the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) List of Confused Drug Names. For each name pair, we analyzed whether the following characteristics were present: (1) the same first letter, (2) a shared letter string of at least 3 letters, and (3) similarity in the number of letters. Additionally, we obtained the combined Phonetic and Orthographic Computer Analysis (POCA) score.
resultsNinety-nine percent of the drug name pairs reflected at least one of the 3 characteristics analyzed. Additionally, 75% of the names had a combined POCA score of ≥50%.
conclusionsThis descriptive analysis provides some insight into characteristics that may be associated with name confusion, which should be considered when formulating and evaluating proposed proprietary drug names.
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.