Trial reportBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Differences in prescribing errors between electronic prescribing and traditional prescribing among medical students: A randomized pilot study.
Trial report in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differences in prescribing errors between electronic prescribing and traditional prescribing among medical students: A randomized pilot study.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThis randomized controlled pilot study aimed to assess the differences in the frequency, type and severity of prescribing errors made by medical students when assessed in an electronic (e-)prescribing system compared to a traditional prescribing method (e.g., typing out a prescription).
methodsFourth year medical students in the period of 1 November to 31 July 2023, were asked to participate in this single-centre prospective, randomized, controlled intervention study. Participants performed a prescribing assessment in either an e-prescribing system (intervention group) or in a more traditional prescribing platform (control group). The prescriptions were checked for errors, graded and categorized. Differences in prescribing errors, error categories and severity were analysed.
resultsOut of 334 students, 84 participated in the study. Nearly all participants (98.8%) made 1 or more prescribing errors, primarily involving inadequate information errors. In the intervention group, more participants made prescribing errors involving the prescribed amount (71.4 vs. 19.0%; P < .01), but fewer involving administrative errors (2.4 vs. 19.0%; P = .03). Prescribing-method-specific errors were identified in 4.8 and 40.5% of the intervention and control group, respectively, with significant differences in overlapping errors as well.
conclusionThis pilot study shows the importance of training e-prescribing competencies in medical curricula, in addition to traditional prescribing methods. It identifies prescribing-method-specific prescribing errors and emphasizes the need for further research to define e-prescribing competencies. Additionally, the need for an accessible real-life-like e-prescribing environment tailored to educators and students is essential for effective learning and incorporation of e-prescribing into medical curricula.
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.