ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2025
"Doctor, would it surprise you if there were prescribing errors in this patient's medication?" Identifying eligible patients for in-hospital pharmacotherapeutic stewardship: A matched case-control study.
Article 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.
- "Doctor, would it surprise you if there were prescribing errors in this patient's medication?" Identifying eligible patients for in-hospital pharmacotherapeutic stewardship: A matched case-control study.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluating a patient's medication list is critical to reduce prescribing errors (PEs), but is a labour- and time-intensive process. Identification of patients at risk of PEs could improve the allocation of scarce time and resources, but currently available prediction tools are not effective.
objectiveTo investigate whether ward doctors can identify patients at risk of PEs.
methodsThis prospective matched case-control study was conducted on three clinical wards in an academic hospital. Otolaryngology and oncology ward doctors used clinical intuition to select patients requiring a clinical medication review (CMR) (cases). These patients were then matched 1:1 on age (±10 years) and number (±1) of prescriptions with patients not selected for CMRs on the internal medicine and upper gastrointestinal surgery ward (controls). A multidisciplinary in-hospital pharmacotherapeutic stewardship team assessed the prevalence of PEs.
resultsA total of 387 patients with 5191 prescriptions were included. Overall, 799 PEs affecting 279 patients (72.1%) were identified. Most PEs (58.8%) occurred during hospitalization. There were no significant differences in age, number of prescriptions, sex, renal function or documented allergies or intolerances between the cases and controls or between controls and other patients who did not receive a CMR. The incidence of PEs was higher in cases than in controls (97.5% vs 72.5%, odds ratio = 14.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-121.1, P = .002)). The rate of PEs was three times higher in cases than in controls (incidence rate ratio = 3.0, 95% CI 2.3-4.0, P < .001).
conclusionsWard doctors can effectively identify patients with PEs, and thus at risk of medication-related harm, using clinical intuition.
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.