ReviewJournal of research in pharmacy practice
Community Pharmacy Dispensing Errors: A Comprehensive Systematic Review on Trends and Solutions.
Review in Journal of research in pharmacy practice. 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.
- Near-miss dispensing errors in Japanese community pharmacies: error types and associated factors across dispensing stages.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dispensing errors in outpatient and community pharmacies pose significant safety risks and contribute to increased global healthcare costs. Despite their frequency, comprehensive studies on rates, causes, and interventions remain limited. This review examines current evidence on dispensing error prevalence, key risk factors, and the impact of mitigation strategies. Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL for studies on dispensing error rates in community and outpatient pharmacies, covering the period from January 2010 to June 2025, including English-language studies and grey literature. Eligible studies reported calculable prevalence using cross-sectional, cohort, or longitudinal designs. Two reviewers independently assessed records, extracted data, and evaluated bias using the NHLBI and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tools. In 22 studies (13 from developing, 9 from developed countries), dispensing error rates ranged from 0.001% to 11.53%, higher in community (mean 4.12%) than in outpatient pharmacies (1.85%). Common errors were wrong dose/ strength (58.6%) and look-/sound-alike drugs (47.90%). Key contributors were workload (55%), staff shortages (22%), and illegible prescriptions (30.70%). While one study reported a modest 1.40% decrease with electronic prescribing, another observed up to a 98.20% reduction using automated systems. GRADE evaluation found very low confidence in the data due to variability in study settings and methods. Dispensing errors remain a major issue, particularly in community pharmacies and underserved areas. Multimodal strategies - integrating technology, standardizing workflows, and training staff - represent a potentially effective approach to reducing errors. Although the certainty of the evidence is very low, the findings may still help guide future policies aimed at introducing error reporting systems, adopting technology, and improving consistency in research methods.
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.