ArticleHealth science reports2024
Comparative analysis of prescription patterns and errors in government versus private hospitals in Dhaka: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of primary and secondary stroke outcomes between government and private healthcare institutions: insights from the SPRINT India trial.Frontiers in stroke · 2026Trial
- Assessment of Drug Dosing Appropriateness in Hospitalized Chronic Kidney Disease Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases: A Cross-Sectional Study in the Al-Baha Region, Saudi Arabia (2023-2025).Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Risk Factors and Patterns of Drug-Drug Interactions in Two Categories of Level-3 Hospitals in Dhaka: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of prescription patterns and errors in government versus private hospitals in Dhaka: A cross-sectional study.Health science reports · 2024Article
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
Background and Objectives: Prescription errors can inadvertently compromise the effectiveness and increase the risk of adverse events. This study aims to compare prescription patterns and errors between government and private hospitals in Dhaka, Bangladesh, by evaluating the World Health Organization (WHO) prescription indicators, polypharmacy, and omission errors. Methods: Between September 2021 and November 2021, a total of 399 prescriptions were collected from outpatient departments of various government and private hospitals from patients or their attendants. The data were analyzed using the statistical package STATA 15. Chi-square and Fisher's exact test were employed to determine associations ( Results: Of the collected prescriptions, 48% ( Conclusion: Both government and private hospitals exhibited similar deviations from the WHO prescribing indicators. While government hospitals showed more omission errors, private hospitals exhibited higher rates of polypharmacy. Physicians in both types of hospitals should be vigilant about omission errors, maintain the WHO prescribing indicators, and minimize polypharmacy.
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.