ArticleBMC health services research2025
Establishment, maintenance and application effect analysis of the prescription pre-review system in a tertiary hospital in China.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of the Prospective Prescription Review System in Reducing Irrational Prescriptions at a Tertiary Specialty Hospital: Retrospective Cohort Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- The role of digital pharmaceutical governance in alleviating health inequality: a case study of the "Sanya Model" for centralized regional prescription review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImplementing a full-sample prescription review system has become imperative for hospitals to address the limitations of post-review practices and ensure patient medication safety. In this study, we investigate the preliminary application impact of the prescription pre-review system (PPRS)and its rules maintenance in our hospital, while also evaluating the pharmaceutical service value resulting from the implementation of prescription pre-review.
methodsWe incorporated levels of prescribing warnings into the PPRS, while establishing and maintaining a database of appropriate medication practices. In addition, we evaluated the rationality of intravenous infusion prescriptions and key monitored drug prescriptions before and after the implementation of PPRS, and briefly evaluated the irrational prescriptions.
resultsA comprehensive range of 7 warning levels was established, reflective of the degree of prescription irrationality. Besides, a total of 3015 user rules were created to regulate medication behavior. The number and proportion of unreasonable prescriptions during January to March 2023 demonstrated a noteworthy reduction when compared to the corresponding period in 2022. Moreover, the continuous evaluation of systematic alert prescriptions during January to March 2023 indicated a remarkable monthly decline.
conclusionThe introduction of the PPRS has ushered in a paradigm shift in the evaluation of prescription rationality. This transformative system has played a pivotal role in standardizing doctor’s prescribing patterns, thereby promoting the rational utilization of drugs in clinical practice. By ensuring patient safety, elevating the quality of care, and enhancing the value of pharmacists, the PPRS has emerged as a catalyst for positive change in the healthcare setting.
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.