ArticlePloS one2019
Comparison of traditional methods versus SAFEcount for filling prescriptions: A pilot study of an innovative pill counting solution in eSwatini.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPackaging medications is a crucial component of health system efficiency and quality. In developing countries, medications often arrive in bulk containers that need to be counted by hand. Traditional counting is time-consuming, inaccurate and tedious. SAFEcount is a novel and inexpensive handheld device that may improve the accuracy and speed of pill-counting in resource limited settings. We designed a head-to-head trial to compare traditional and SAFEcount prescription filling in eSwatini.
methodsWe recruited 31 participants from 13 health facilities throughout eSwatini. Speed and accuracy for each prescription was recorded while each participant filled prescriptions of various quantities using both the traditional and SAFEcount methods.
resultsTraditional pill counting resulted in an error rate of 12.6% inaccurate prescriptions compared to 4.8% for SAFEcount (p<0.0001). SAFEcount was 42.3% faster than traditional counting (99.9 pills per minute versus 70.2; p<0.0001). Using SAFEcount was preferred over traditional pill counting by 97% (29/30) of participants.
conclusionsThe SAFEcount device is a preferred alternative by counting personnel and is significantly faster and more accurate compared to traditional counting methods. SAFEcount could help improve the efficiency and quality of health care delivery in place of traditional hand counting.
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.