ArticleRevista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P2022
Tools for the investigation of adverse events: scoping review.
Article in Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P, 2022. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo map, in the literature, the risk management tools aimed at investigating health adverse events.
methodScoping review according to the Joanna Brigss Institute, with acronym PCC (Population: hospitalized patients, Concept: tools for the investigation of adverse events, and Context: health institutions) carried out in MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, LILACS, Scopus, CINAHL, and gray literature.
resultsThe search totaled 825 scientific productions, 31 of which met the objective of the study, which consisted of 27 scientific articles and 4 expert consensus. It was possible to carry out a synthesis of the necessary steps for the investigation of adverse events and use of the tools according to the extent of damage.
conclusionThe practice of investigating adverse events should be guided by a thorough understanding of contributing factors, a fair culture, and the involvement of senior leadership.
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.