Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 447

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Guided Medication Dosing for Inpatients With Renal Insufficiency

Chertow, Glenn M.·2001·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Usual drug-prescribing practices may not consider the effects of renal insufficiency on the disposition of certain drugs. Decision aids may help optimize prescribing behavior and reduce medical error. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a system application for adjusting drug dose and frequency in patients with renal insufficiency, when merged with a computerized order entry system, improves drug prescribing and patient outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Four consecutive 2-month intervals consisting of control (usual computerized order entry) alternating with intervention (computerized order entry plus decision support system), conducted in September 1997-April 1998 with outcomes assessed among a consecutive sample of 17 828 adults admitted to an urban tertiary care teaching hospital. INTERVENTION: Real-time computerized decision support system for prescribing drugs in patients with renal insufficiency. During intervention periods, the adjusted dose list, default dose amount, and default frequency were displayed to the order-entry user and a notation was provided that adjustments had been made based on renal insufficiency. During control periods, these recommended adjustments were not revealed to the order-entry user, and the unadjusted parameters were displayed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of appropriate prescription by dose and frequency, length of stay, hospital and pharmacy costs, and changes in renal function, compared among patients with renal insufficiency who were hospitalized during the intervention vs control periods. RESULTS: A total of 7490 patients were found to have some degree of renal insufficiency. In this group, 97 151 orders were written on renally cleared or nephrotoxic medications, of which 14 440 (15%) had at least 1 dosing parameter modified by the computer based on renal function. The fraction of prescriptions deemed appropriate during the intervention vs control periods by dose was 67% vs 54% (P<.001) and by frequency was 59% vs 35% (P<.001). Mean (SD) length of stay was 4.3 (4.5) days vs 4.5 (4.8) days in the intervention vs control periods, respectively (P =.009). There were no significant differences in estimated hospital and pharmacy costs or in the proportion of patients who experienced a decline in renal function during hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Guided medication dosing for inpatients with renal insufficiency appears to result in improved dose and frequency choices. This intervention demonstrates a way in which computer-based decision support systems can improve 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/jama.286.22.2839

Cites

3 of 3 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 447

Metadata

Authors
Chertow, G. M.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2001-12-12
Volume
286
Issue
22
Pages
2839
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2153767046
Cited by
447
References
3
FWCI
33.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Guided Medication Dosing for Inpatients With Renal Insufficiency. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.286.22.2839
The paper
Chertow, G. M. (2001). Guided Medication Dosing for Inpatients With Renal Insufficiency. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.286.22.2839

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.