Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30683970›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2019

A systematic review and meta-analysis of microbial contamination of parenteral medication prepared in a clinical versus pharmacy environment.

Karin H M Larmené-Beld, Henderik W Frijlink, Katja Taxis

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Economic Evaluation of Ready-to-Dilute Thiotepa (TepyluteClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy
    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

3 authors.

Karin H M Larmené-BeldDepartment of Clinical pharmacy, Isala Hospital, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025, AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands. k.h.m.beld@isala.nl.
Henderik W FrijlinkDepartment of Pharmaceutical Technology and Biopharmacy-Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Katja TaxisDepartment of Pharmacotherapy, Epidemiology and Economics, Groningen Research institute of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePreparation of parenteral medication in hospitals is a complex process with a risk of microbial contamination of the product, especially when inappropriately prepared. Contaminated parenteral medications can cause severe complications to patients and increase morbidity in hospitals. The aim of this literature review is to systematically evaluate the contamination rate of parenteral medications in hospitals prepared in a pharmacy environment and a clinical environment.

methodsA literature search of PubMed and EMBASE from 2000 to 2018 was performed. Two different environments where preparation may be carried out were defined. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals for contamination rates were calculated for each environment of medication preparation. The meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model.

resultsThe contamination rates in the clinical environment (n = 13 studies) varied between 1.09 and 20.70%. In the pharmacy environment (n = 5), all contamination rates were 0.00% except for one study (0.66%). The point estimates (random effect model) for the overall contamination rate of doses prepared in the clinical environment was 7.47% (5.16-9.79%), and 0.08% for doses prepared in the pharmacy environment. The point estimates (random effect model) for the overall contamination rate of doses prepared by nursing/ medical staff was 7.85% (5.18-10.53%), and 0.08% for doses prepared by pharmacy staff.

conclusionsSignificantly higher contamination rates were found for the preparation of parenteral medication in the clinical environment compared to pharmacy environment. In accordance with recent guidance, the almost 100-fold higher changes of contamination when reconstitution is performed in the clinical environment should urge hospitals to review their reconstitution process and apply risk-reducing measures to improve patient safety of parenteral therapy.

Indexed as

HospitalsPharmaciesDrug CompoundingDrug ContaminationHumansInfusions, ParenteralHospitalMedication preparationMicrobial contaminationPharmacy

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.