ArticleDrug, healthcare and patient safety2026
Computerized Physician Order Entry and Pediatric Prescribing Errors: A Multicenter Database Study.
Article in Drug, healthcare and patient safety, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare dosing error rates between computerized physician order entry (CPOE) and free-text electronic prescribing in hospitalized children during the same time period, given inconsistent evidence regarding the effectiveness of CPOE in pediatric settings. Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study across four Israeli general hospitals between July 1, 2022, and December 31, 2023. A computerized algorithm analyzed the ten most frequently administered systemic medications and flagged potential dosing errors defined as a ≥20% deviation from weight-based recommendations. All flagged prescriptions underwent blinded independent review by a senior pediatrician with toxicology expertise and a pediatric clinical pharmacist to confirm clinical significance. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs). Results: Of 122,869 medication orders for 63,081 children, the confirmed error rate was 3.6%. In unadjusted analyses, dosing errors were more frequent with CPOE than with manual prescribing (3.8% vs 2.8%; p<0.001). After adjustment, CPOE was not associated with a significant overall difference in error risk (aOR 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.09). In the enteral-only analysis, CPOE was associated with a 33% higher risk of errors in enteral medications (aOR 1.33; 95% CI 1.18-1.51; p<0.001). Error risk also varied by hospital site, patient weight, care setting, and administration route. Conclusion: In real-world pediatric settings, CPOE was not associated with a lower overall incidence of dosing errors, and higher error rates were observed among enteral medications. These results suggest that CPOE may introduce route-specific vulnerabilities, highlighting the need for system-specific optimization rather than assuming electronic ordering is inherently safer.
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.