Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30306141›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2018

Systematic review and meta-analysis of community pharmacy error rates in the USA: 1993-2015.

Patrick J Campbell, Mira Patel, Jennifer R Martin, Ana L Hincapie, David Rhys Axon, Terri L Warholak, Marion Slack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Evaluation of patient safety culture in community pharmacies.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023
    Article
  11. Medication errors in community pharmacies: Evaluation of a standardized safety program.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Clozapine Toxicity in Two Young Siblings Due to a Pharmacy Dispensing Error: a Pediatric Case Report.Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Patrick J CampbellDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Mira PatelDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Jennifer R MartinUniversity of Arizona Health Sciences Library, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Ana L HincapieDivision of Pharmacy Practice and Administrative Sciences, James L Winkle College of Pharmacy, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
David Rhys AxonDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Terri L WarholakDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Marion SlackDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceWhile much is known about hospital pharmacy error rates in the USA, comparatively little is known about community pharmacy dispensing error rates.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the rate of community pharmacy dispensing errors in the USA.

methodsEnglish language, peer-reviewed observational and interventional studies that reported community pharmacy dispensing error rates in the USA from January 1993 to December 2015 were identified in 10 bibliographic databases and topic-relevant grey literature. Studies with a denominator reflecting the total number of prescriptions in the sample were necessary for inclusion in the meta-analysis. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate an aggregate community pharmacy dispensing error rate. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I

resultsThe search yielded a total of 8490 records, of which 11 articles were included in the systematic review. Two articles did not have adequate data components to be included in the meta-analysis. Dispensing error rates ranged from 0.00003% (43/1 420 091) to 55% (55/100). The meta-analysis included 1 461 128 prescriptions. The overall community pharmacy dispensing error rate was estimated to be 0.015 (95% CI 0.014 to 0.018); however, significant heterogeneity was observed across studies (I CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: There are few published articles that describe community pharmacy dispensing error rates in the USA. Thus, there is limited information about the current rate of community pharmacy dispensing errors. A robust investigation is needed to assess dispensing error rates in the USA to assess the nature and magnitude of the problem and establish prevention strategies.

Indexed as

healthcare quality improvementhuman errormedication safetypharmacists

Identifiers

PMID30306141
PMCPMC6173242

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.