SynthesisJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Intravenous Medication Administration Errors in Hospitalised Patients: An Updated Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Comment on 'Assessing the Effectiveness of Interventions Implemented by Nurses to Reduce Medication Administration Errors in Hospitalised Acute Adult Patient Settings: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis'.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Article
- Global Prevalence and Associated Factors of Medication Errors in Hospitalized Pediatric Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2026Review
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
Abstract
backgroundAdministering intravenous (IV) drugs carries a high risk of adverse effects due to their direct entry into circulation. Identifying the prevalence and types of IV administration errors and the drugs involved is crucial for implementing effective interventions to reduce such errors.
aimThis systematic review aimed to examine and synthesise the available articles on medication errors involving IV administration in hospitalised patients.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted using electronic databases, including PubMed, Ovid Medline, and CINAHL. The search was performed without time limitation up to July 2023. However, only articles published in English and human subjects were included. The quality of the studies was appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS). This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023469352).
resultDatabase searches yielded 2177 articles; after duplicate removal, 1717 underwent title and abstract screening, and 23 were included after full-text review. The studies were from 12 countries, and the multicentre study included countries from Europe, Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Australia. The majority of the studies were conducted in either teaching hospitals (n = 11) or university-affiliated hospitals (n = 7), with most involving direct observation (n = 21). IV administration errors exhibit a broad prevalence range of 5.0%-62.9%, involving various types such as wrong diluent, dose, route, rate, technique, omission, and timing. Studies lack uniformity in reporting, with some not specifying prevalence. The highest prevalence of specific errors varies across settings.
conclusionOur review highlights that IV medication error rates vary based on study design, setting, and population. Standardised definitions, reporting procedures, and reliable tracking methods are needed. Human factors, system issues, and environmental stressors influence medication errors. Future research must improve our understanding and address these factors to enhance patient safety and healthcare quality.
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.