ArticleBMJ open2023
Estimating the frequency of inpatient adverse events using a two-step retrospective chart review: a study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Estimating the Frequency of Inpatient Adverse Events Using a 2-Step Retrospective Chart Review: Initial Observational Cohort Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Observational
- Broadening the definition of patient-safety events: lessons from a multicentre learning health system collaborative.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAdverse events are a major cause of patient harm in the hospitalised setting. Low-income and middle-income countries account for a disproportionate share of the global burden of adverse events. However, patient safety research is still centred around high-income countries and high-resource health systems. The methods and data produced from these efforts are ill-suited to low-income and middle-income systems due to the social and technical differences between these settings. We aim to use our pilot-tested, locally developed methodology to estimate the frequency and characteristics of adverse events in hospitalised patients in a lower-middle-income country to inform patient safety policies and initiatives. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multi-centre study will employ a two-step chart review methodology to identify adverse events in a representative sample of patients admitted at five hospitals between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2019. The first step will include assessing patient files against a list of triggers to detect adverse events and the second step will involve an in-depth review of the events to capture pertinent characteristics. The triggers have been adapted from validated tools used in other studies. The reviewing team will be trained on the use of research tools and operational definitions to ensure that data are collected uniformly. The main outcome of interest is the rate at which adverse events occur in hospitalised patients. Further analysis will look to identify and quantify associations between the main outcome of interest and a variety of variables such as patient age and gender using tests of independence and regression techniques. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol has been approved by the Ethics Review Committee at Aga Khan University (Reference number: 2023-6324-24566). The findings of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated to the public through national and international conferences, workshops, websites and social media.
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.