Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31477096›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2019

Prevalence of medical errors in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Siavash Vaziri, Farya Fakouri, Maryam Mirzaei, Mandana Afsharian, Mohsen Azizi, Morteza Arab-Zozani

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Siavash VaziriDepartment of Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Farya FakouriClinical Research Development Center, Imam Reza Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Maryam MirzaeiSchool of Allied Medical Sciences, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Mandana AfsharianDepartment of Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Mohsen AziziDepartment of Medical Microbiology, School of Medicine, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Morteza Arab-ZozaniSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran. morteza.arab.zozani@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7223-6707
Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences · IRBirjand University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences 97084
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical errors are considered as a major threat to patient safety. To clarify medical errors' status in Iran, a review was conducted to estimate the accurate prevalence of medical errors.

methodsA comprehensive search was conducted in international databases (MEDLINE, Scopus and the Web of Science), national databases (SID, Magiran, and Barakat) and Google Scholar search engine. The search was performed without time limitation up to January 2017 using the MeSH terms of Medical "error(s)" and "Iran" in Endnote X5. Article in English and Persian which estimated the prevalence of medical errors in Iran were eligible to be included in this review. The JBI appraisal instrument was used to assess the quality of included studies, by two independent reviewers. The prevalence of medical errors was calculating using random effect model. Stata software was used for data analysis.

resultsIn 40 included studies, the most frequent occupational group observed were nursing staff and nursing students (21 studies; 52% of studies). The most reported type of error was medication error (25 studies; 62% of studies, with prevalence ranged from 10 to 80%). University or teaching hospitals (30 studies; 75% of studies) as well as, internal/intensive care wards (10 studies; 25% of studies) were the most frequent hospitals and wards detected. Based on the result of the random effect model, the overall estimated prevalence of medical errors was 50% (95% confidence interval: 0.426, 0.574).

conclusionResult of the comprehensive literature review of the current studies, found a wide variation in the prevalence of medical errors based on the occupational group, type of error, and health care setting. In this regards, providing enough education to nurses, improvement of patient safety culture and quality of services and attention to special wards, especially in teaching hospitals are suggested.

Indexed as

Medication ErrorsHospitals, TeachingHumansIranNursing StaffPatient SafetyPrevalenceStudents, NursingIranMedical errorsPrevalenceSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31477096
PMCPMC6720396
OpenAlexW2971258543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.