Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35925985›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2022

Drug administration errors in Latin America: A systematic review.

Lindemberg Assunção-Costa, Ivellise Costa de Sousa, Maria Rafaela Alves de Oliveira, Charleston Ribeiro Pinto, Juliana Ferreira Fernandes Machado, Cleidenete Gomes Valli, Luís Eugênio Portela Fernandes de Souza

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Determining Medication Errors in an Adult Intensive Care Unit.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  8. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lindemberg Assunção-CostaDepartment of Medicine, School of Pharmacy, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-8752-7301
Ivellise Costa de SousaDepartment of Pharmacy, University Hospital Professor Edgard Santos, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0005-2172
Maria Rafaela Alves de OliveiraDepartment of Pharmacy, University Hospital Professor Edgard Santos, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
Charleston Ribeiro PintoDepartment of Medicine, School of Pharmacy, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
Juliana Ferreira Fernandes MachadoNational Institute for Pharmaceutical Assistance and Pharmacoeconomics, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
Cleidenete Gomes ValliHealth Department of the State of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
Luís Eugênio Portela Fernandes de SouzaInstitute of Collective Health, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
Universidade Federal da Bahia · BRComplexo Hospitalar Universitário Professor Edgard Santos · BRUniversidade do Estado da Bahia · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study systematically reviewed studies to determine the frequency and nature of medication administration errors in Latin American hospitals. SUMMARY: We systematically searched the medical literature of seven electronic databases to identify studies on medication administration errors in Latin American hospitals using the direct observation method. Studies published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese between 1946 and March 2021 were included. A total of 10 studies conducted at 22 hospitals were included in the review. Nursing professionals were the most frequently observed during medication administration and were observers in four of the ten included studies. Total number of error opportunities was used as a parameter to calculate error rates. The administration error rate had a median of 32% (interquartile range 16%-35.8%) with high variability in the described frequencies (9%-64%). Excluding time errors, the median error rate was 9.7% (interquartile range 7.4%-29.5%). Four different definitions of medication errors were used in these studies. The most frequently observed errors were time, dose, and omission. Only four studies described the therapeutic classes or groups involved in the errors, with systemic anti-infectives being the most reported. None of the studies assessed the severity or outcome of the errors. The assessment of the overall risk bias revealed that one study had low risk, three had moderate risk, and three had high risk. In the assessment of the exploratory, observational, and before-after studies, two were classified as having fair quality and one as having poor quality.

conclusionThe administration error rate in Latin America was high, even when time errors were excluded. The variation observed in the frequencies can be explained by the different contexts in which the study was conducted. Future research using direct observation techniques is necessary to more accurately estimate the nature and severity of medication administration errors.

Indexed as

HospitalsMedication ErrorsDatabases, FactualHumansLatin AmericaPharmaceutical PreparationsPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID35925985
PMCPMC9352042
OpenAlexW4289782701

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.