ArticleSaudi medical journal2026
Medication Errors Reporting and Analysis:
Article in Saudi medical journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo analyze and compare these stages, types, frequency, causes, and corrective actions related to medication errors (MEs) reported in Ministry of Health (MOH) hospitals in Saudi Arabia, and thereby enhance medication safety through data driven decisions.
methodsA retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using ME reports submitted to the Saudi MOH national reporting system from January 2023 to December 2024.Data were collected from nine hospitals, covering medication involved, reporting personnel, level of harm and corrective actions. A novel stratification framework (NSF) was used to visualize emerging risks and protective trends. Statistical analyses were conducted using relative risk (RR), risk difference (RD), Cohen's [h], Pearson's Chi-square test, and Z-adjusted column proportion comparisons.
resultsA sample of 19,645 MEs was analyzed with almost equal gender proportions (
conclusionThe findings highlight the importance of continuous evaluation and rigorous analysis of MEs data and the design of novel quantifiable tools for benchmarking safety and guiding targeted interventions in healthcare settings.
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.