Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16198738

Lessons learned: basic evidence-based advice for preventing medication errors in children.

Donna Ojanen Thomas
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAttitude of Health PersonnelBody WeightChildChild, PreschoolDocumentationDrug Administration RoutesEmergency Medical ServicesEmergency NursingEvidence-Based MedicineHumansInfantMedical History TakingMedication ErrorsNursing RecordsPediatric NursingUnited StatesJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Donna Ojanen Thomas. 2005. Lessons learned: basic evidence-based advice for preventing medication errors in children.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2005.08.007

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

An analysis of the exclusion criteria used in observational pharmacoepidemiological studies.

PURPOSE: The application of exclusion criteria in pharmacoepidemiological studies could have a major impact on the findings but there appears to have been no previous research to examine the types of exclusion criteria applied. METHODS: We searched the literature and identified 10 senior pharmacoepidemiologists who had published five or more relevant papers between 1999 and 2004. All their published drug safety studies during this period were reviewed. A classification system was developed to categorise the exclusion criteria, with 5 categories and 11 sub-categories. The categories were: (1) data quality and validation, (2) disease-related, (3) exposure-related, (4) patient characteristics and (5) miscellaneous reasons. Within each sub-category, only the first exclusion criterion identified for that study was counted. RESULTS: We identified 200 studies, from which a total of 752 exclusion criteria sub-categories had been applied (mean 3.8 per study; between-author range of means 2.8-5.1). At the category level, exclusion criteria relating to data quality and validation were the most commonly applied (87% of publications), followed by patient characteristics (75%), disease-related (69%), exposure-related (38%) and miscellaneous (3%). The main categories for which research practice appeared to differ were those relating to diseases and exposures. The application of sub-category 'risk factors and alternative causes' varied between authors from 0% to 81% of studies, and for the sub-category 'medication of interest' it varied from 5% to 93%. CONCLUSIONS: There are important differences between investigators in the application of exclusion criteria in pharmacoepidemiological studies. It is likely that a substantial part of the observed variation reflects different research practices of investigators.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems↗
PubMed2007

Reporting adverse events in randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: How randomized controlled trial results are reported may minimize concerns and detection of adverse side effects. We aimed to describe the methods of reporting adverse events in these published trials. METHODS: Five frequently cited journals were investigated: Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, JAMA, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine. For each journal, all randomized controlled trials conducted on the use of a medication were selected from January 2000 through June 2003. All issues of each journal were reviewed manually. Information retrieved included any mention of adverse events in the abstract, methods, results, or discussion section of the article; or inclusion of adverse events data in tables or figures. We also cataloged whether there was a separate subheading in the results section for reporting adverse events. Reports of trials that referred to methods described in a previous report were excluded. RESULTS: There were 521 eligible articles. Explicit mention of adverse events was in 328 (63%) of abstracts (range 47-66%), 380 (73%) of methods (range 51-81%), 464 (89%) of results (range 80-95%), and 250 (48%) of tables (range 31-49%). There was a separate subheading for adverse events in 240 (46%) (range 22-64%) of the eligible articles. CONCLUSION: There is variation among authors and journals as to the location of reporting adverse events and the means by which it is done. Authors and editors should include specific information on adverse events when reporting the results of randomized controlled trials. It would be ideal if there was more consistency among authors and journals as to how these adverse events are described.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems↗
PubMed2007

Data mining for signals in spontaneous reporting databases: proceed with caution.

PURPOSE: To provide commentary and points of caution to consider before incorporating data mining as a routine component of any Pharmacovigilance program, and to stimulate further research aimed at better defining the predictive value of these new tools as well as their incremental value as an adjunct to traditional methods of post-marketing surveillance. METHODS/RESULTS: Commentary includes review of current data mining methodologies employed and their limitations, caveats to consider in the use of spontaneous reporting databases and caution against over-confidence in the results of data mining. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should focus on more clearly delineating the limitations of the various quantitative approaches as well as the incremental value that they bring to traditional methods of pharmacovigilance.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems↗