ArticleCaspian journal of internal medicine2021
Medication errors in hematology-oncology ward by consultation: The role of the clinical pharmacologist.
Article in Caspian journal of internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical pharmacology consultations and their implementation in clinical decision making.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim was to describe, evaluate and document the prevention of medication errors by clinical pharmacologist consultations in patients with cancer.
methodsWe assessed the effect of clinical pharmacologist consultation by the acceptance of interventions recommended due to dosage, frequency, duration of therapy errors and drug-drug interactions (DDIs). All medication errors detected by clinical pharmacologist were reported in the format of medical consultation. A documentation template was designed to collect the patient's data (sex, age, and diagnosis), prescriptions written, and drug-specific recommendations. For the descriptive analysis of medication errors, the unit of analysis was the number and percentage of errors.
resultsA total of 296 patients included in this study with a median age of 48.67±19.76 years of which 47.30% were females. 936 prescribing errors were detected and recommended for their correction. The specialist physicians accepted 897 of prescribed errors. DDIs that were detected in 66.22% of patients, were the most errors in this group of errors (47%). Improper dose (17.41%) wrong frequency (16.67%) and drug-food interaction (10.26%) were after that.
conclusionPharmacological consultation in the hematology-oncology ward revealed many medication errors. The trust of physicians in the views of the clinical pharmacologist led to a large part of these errors being accepted and resolved.
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.