Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 512

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Hospital-Based Medication Reconciliation Practices: A Systematic Review

Open access
Mueller, Stephanie K., Sponsler, Kelly Cunningham, Kripalani, Sunil, Schnipper, Jeffrey L.·2012·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Medication discrepancies at care transitions are common and lead to patient harm. Medication reconciliation is a strategy to reduce this risk. OBJECTIVES: To summarize available evidence on medication reconciliation interventions in the hospital setting and to identify the most effective practices. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966 through February 2012) and a manual search of article bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION: Twenty-six controlled studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted on study design, setting, participants, inclusion/exclusion criteria, intervention components, timing, comparison group, outcome measures, and results. DATA SYNTHESIS: Studies were grouped by type of medication reconciliation intervention-pharmacist related, information technology (IT), or other-and were assigned quality ratings using US Preventive Services Task Force criteria. RESULTS: Fifteen of 26 studies reported pharmacist-related interventions, 6 evaluated IT interventions, and 5 studied other interventions. Six studies were classified as good quality. The comparison group for all the studies was usual care; no studies compared different types of interventions. Studies consistently demonstrated a reduction in medication discrepancies (17 of 17 studies), potential adverse drug events (5 of 6 studies), and adverse drug events (2 of 2 studies) but showed an inconsistent reduction in postdischarge health care utilization (improvement in 2 of 8 studies). Key aspects of successful interventions included intensive pharmacy staff involvement and targeting the intervention to a high-risk patient population. CONCLUSIONS: Rigorously designed studies comparing different inpatient medication reconciliation practices and their effects on clinical outcomes are scarce. Available evidence supports medication reconciliation interventions that heavily use pharmacy staff and focus on patients at high risk for adverse events. Higher-quality studies are needed to determine the most effective approaches to inpatient medication reconciliation.

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/archinternmed.2012.2246

Cites

37 of 37 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

Cites

Show all 37 references

Cited by

See all 512

Metadata

Authors
Mueller, S. K., Sponsler, K. C., Kripalani, S., & Schnipper, J. L.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2012-07-23
Volume
172
Issue
14
Pages
1057-69
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2107437807
Cited by
512
References
37
FWCI
16.76
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: Hospital-Based Medication Reconciliation Practices: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinternmed.2012.2246
The paper
Mueller, S. K., Sponsler, K. C., Kripalani, S., & Schnipper, J. L. (2012). Hospital-Based Medication Reconciliation Practices: A Systematic Review. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2012.2246

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.