Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 279

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Discrepancies in the Use of Medications: Their Extent and Predictors in an Outpatient Practice

Open access
Bedell, Susanna E., Jabbour, Samer, Goldberg, Robert, Glaser, Helene, Gobble, Susan, Young-Xu, Yinong, Graboys, Thomas B., Ravid, Shmuel·2000·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Misuse of medications is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Few studies have examined the frequency of, and factors associated with, discrepancies between what doctors prescribe and what patients take in actual practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients' medication bottles and their reported use of medications were compared with physicians' records of outpatients seen between November 1997 and February 1998 in a private practice affiliated with an academic medical center in Boston, Mass. Three hundred twelve patients from the practices of 5 cardiologists and 2 internists who were returning for their routine follow-up visits were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The presence of discrepancies based on comparing medication bottles with medical records. RESULTS: Discrepancies were present in 239 patients (76%). The 545 discrepancies in these patients were the result of patients taking medications that were not recorded (n = 278 [51%]); patients not taking a recorded medication (n = 158 [29%]); and differences in dosage (n = 109 [20%]). Overall, discrepancies were randomly distributed among different drugs and discrepancy types with no discernible pattern. On multivariate analysis, patient age and number of recorded medications were the 2 most significant predictors of medication discrepancy. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancies among recorded and reported medications were common and involved all classes of medications, including cardiac and prescription drugs. Older age and polypharmacy were the most significant correlates of discrepancy. The pervasiveness of discrepancies can have significant health care implications, and action is urgently needed to address their causes. Such action would likely have a positive impact on patient care.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.160.14.2129

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 279

Metadata

Authors
Bedell, S. E., Jabbour, S., Goldberg, R., Glaser, H., Gobble, S., Young-Xu, Y., Graboys, T. B., & Ravid, S.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2000-07-24
Volume
160
Issue
14
Pages
2129
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2080981268
Cited by
279
References
1
FWCI
5.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Discrepancies in the Use of Medications: Their Extent and Predictors in an Outpatient Practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.160.14.2129
The paper
Bedell, S. E., Jabbour, S., Goldberg, R., Glaser, H., Gobble, S., Young-Xu, Y., Graboys, T. B., & Ravid, S. (2000). Discrepancies in the Use of Medications: Their Extent and Predictors in an Outpatient Practice. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.160.14.2129

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.