ArticlePharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2021
A Methodological Assessment of Pharmacist Therapeutic Intervention Documentation (TID) in a Single Tertiary Care Hospital in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Article in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Medication Errors in Saudi Arabian Hospital Settings: A Systematic Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Pooled it
- Pharmacists' Interventions on Electronic Prescriptions from Various Specialty Wards in a Malaysian Public Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pharmacist intervention has valuable input to the healthcare system by reducing medication errors, costs of treatment and improving therapeutic outcomes. This study aimed to analyze pharmacists' interventions during the verification of computerized physician order entry and to determine the association between prescribers' level and type of prescribing errors. In this cross-sectional, observational study, data collection was carried out over three months starting from 1 January 2020 to 31 March 2020. Included were 2405 interventions documented by 52 different pharmacists. The prevalence of prescribing order entry errors was 9.1%. The most identifiable type of intervention was incorrect dilution (40.2%) followed by dose substitution (27.7%). The drug category associated with a high percentage of interventions was perfusion solutions (41%), followed by antibacterial (35%). The number of junior physician orders that required pharmacist intervention was higher than other prescribers (45.2%), followed by specialist and senior physicians, (31.4% and 15.5%, respectively). Prescriber ordering time and types of prescribing errors were shown to have a significant (
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.