ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2024
Impact of pharmaceutical validation on prescribing errors in a neonatal intensive care unit. Randomised and controlled study.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reported Dosing-Related Medication Errors Involving Systemic Antibiotics in the Brazilian Pharmacovigilance Database (2018-2025): Distribution Across the WHO AWaRe Classification.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Self-Reported Practices of South African Pharmacists Regarding Pediatric Pharmaceutical Care.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2025Article
- Article
- Medication use in the neonatal intensive care unit in a tertiary hospital in China from 2020 to 2023.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Electronic Prescribing in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Analysis of Prescribing Errors and Risk Factors.Journal of medical systems · 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the frequency of electronic prescription errors when the prescription was validated by the clinical pharmacist vs. when it was not. Methods: This prospective randomised controlled study was conducted in three phases. A randomised phase, in which patients were divided into control and intervention groups, and a pre- and post-intervention phase were consecutively performed to analyse the impact of pharmaceutical validation of prescriptions in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). This study was performed at a highly complex NICU at a tertiary hospital. All patients born during the study period who were admitted to the NICU, with a stay lasting ≥24 h, and received active pharmacological treatment were included in the study. Pharmaceutical validation was performed according to the paediatric pharmaceutical care model. A high level of validation was selected for this study. In the intervention group, discrepancies found during the review process were communicated to the medical team responsible for the patients and resolved on the same day. Results: In total, 240 patients were included in this study. Sixty-two patients were allocated to the pre-intervention ( Conclusions: This study showed that the pharmaceutical validation process decreased both the number of errors in the electronic prescribing tools and the number of prescription errors reaching the patient.
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.