Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31396810›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2019

Effect of Electronic Prescribing Strategies on Medication Error and Harm in Hospital: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Nadia Roumeliotis, Jonathan Sniderman, Thomasin Adams-Webber, Newton Addo, Vijay Anand, Paula Rochon, Anna Taddio, Christopher Parshuram

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Reducing medication errors for adults in hospital settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  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

8 authors.

Nadia RoumeliotisDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada. nadia.roumeliotis@gmail.com.
Jonathan SnidermanDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Thomasin Adams-WebberLibrary & Archives Services, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Newton AddoDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, UCSF, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Vijay AnandDepartment of Pediatrics, Stollery Children's Hospital, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Paula RochonWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Anna TaddioChild Health Evaluative Sciences, and Center for Safety Research, SickKids Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Christopher ParshuramDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComputerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems are electronic prescribing strategies that are increasingly used to improve patient safety. Previous reviews show limited effect on patient outcomes. Our objective was to assess the impact of electronic prescribing strategies on medication errors and patient harm in hospitalized patients.

methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched from January 2007 to January 2018. We included prospective studies that compared hospital-based electronic prescribing strategies with control, and reported on medication error or patient harm. Data were abstracted by two reviewers and pooled using random effects model. Study quality was assessed using the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care and evidence quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.

resultsThirty-eight studies were included; comprised of 11 randomized control trials and 27 non-randomized interventional studies. Electronic prescribing strategies reduced medication errors (RR 0.24 (95% CI 0.13, 0.46), I DISCUSSION: Electronic prescribing strategies decrease medication errors and adverse drug events, but had no effect on other patient outcomes. Conservative interpretations of these findings are supported by significant heterogeneity and the preponderance of low-quality studies.

Indexed as

Electronic PrescribingDecision Support Systems, ClinicalDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansMedication ErrorsOutcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCDSSCPOEelectronic prescribingmedication errorpreventable adverse drug events

Identifiers

PMID31396810
PMCPMC6816608

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.