Does splitting a tablet obtain the accurate dose?: A systematic review protocol
Open accessAbstract
Background: Physical manipulation of the manufactured dose form is a common practice, with almost a quarter of all drugs administered in primary care having their dose altered. Splitting a tablet can be advantageous as it facilitates swallowing, allows for dose flexibility and provides cost reductions. However, there are concerns these physical changes can lead to inaccurate portions resulting in significant variations from the prescribed dose. Thus, the review described in this protocol aims to summarise the literature assessing the effect of tablet splitting on dose accuracy. Methods: Relevant studies will be identified through electronic searches in databases including EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, from the beginning of databases until January 2020. Studies investigating any drug, where the tablet was split, will be potentially eligible. Two reviewers will independently screen studies and extract data using standardised forms. Data extracted will include general study information, characteristics of the study, intervention characteristics and outcomes. Primary outcome is to assess dose accuracy of a split tablet measured by drug content or weight variability. Assessment of risk of bias will be dependent upon study design. If deemed feasible, meta-analysis will be performed. Results: The study described within this protocol will provide a synthesis of current evidence assessing the effect of tablet splitting on dose accuracy. Conclusion: The conclusion of our study will provide evidence to judge whether splitting a tablet results in an accurate half dose. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval was not required for this study. The results of the systematic review described will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Registration details: PROSPERO CRD42018106252
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The data extraction form was piloted and iteratively optimised by two investigators using three of the included studies.
“The data extraction form was piloted and iteratively optimised by two investigators (KC, MK) using three of the included studies.16”
From Does splitting a tablet obtain an accurate dose? A systematic review and meta‐ analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [16]
The Methods section (Data collection process) says two reviewers would pilot and optimise the data extraction form. It specifies five randomly selected eligible studies, not three, and describes a plan rather than a completed pilot; it does not say the optimisation was iterative. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRisk of bias of included studies was assessed independently by two investigators using appropriate risk of bias tools.
“Risk of bias of included studies was assessed independently by two investigators using appropriate risk of bias tools.16”
From Does splitting a tablet obtain an accurate dose? A systematic review and meta‐ analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [16]
The Methods section (‘Risk of bias in individual studies’) says two reviewers will assess RCTs in parallel using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and describes a separate quality appraisal tool for other studies. But this paper is a protocol: it proposes those assessments rather than reporting that two investigators assessed the included studies. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 · Cited by 23,020 · see citing works
Appraising the Evidence: Reviewing Disparate Data Systematically
Hawker, S., Payne, S., Kerr, C., Hardey, M., & Powell, J. (2002) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732302238251 · Cited by 1,216 · see citing works
WHO systematic review of maternal mortality and morbidity: methodological issues and challenges
Gülmezoglu, A. M., Say, L., Betrán, A. P., Villar, J., & Piaggio, G. (2004) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-4-16 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- [1]Quinzler R Gasse C Schneider A The frequency of inappropriate tablet splitting in primary care. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 62: 1065 73. 17024485
- [2]Marquis J Schneider M-P Payot V Swallowing difficulties with oral drugs among polypharmacy patients attending community pharmacies. Int J Clin Pharm 2013; 35: 1130 6. 23963541
- [3]Elliott I Mayxay M Yeuichaixong S The practice and clinical implications of tablet splitting in international health. Trop Med Int Health 2014; 19: 754 60. 24702766 PMC4285309
- [4]Abu-Geras D Hadziomerovic D Leau A Accuracy of tablet splitting and liquid measurements: an examination of who, what and how. J Pharm Pharmacol 2017; 69: 603 12. 28028813
- [5]Arnet I Hersberger KE Misleading score-lines on tablets: facilitated intake or fractional dosing? Swiss Med Wkly 2010; 140: 105 10. 20069474
- [6]Gee M Hasson NK Hahn T Effects of a tablet-splitting program in patients taking HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors: analysis of clinical effects, patient satisfaction, compliance, and cost avoidance. J Manag Care Pharm 2002; 8: 453 8. 14613379
- [7]Gerber A Kohaupt I Lauterbach KW Quantification and classification of errors associated with hand-repackaging of medications in long-term care facilities in Germany. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother 2008; 6: 212 9. 19028377
- [8]Shah RB Collier JS Sayeed VA Tablet splitting of a narrow therapeutic index drug: a case with levothyroxine sodium. AAPS PharmSciTech 2010; 11: 1359 67. 20740332 PMC2974142
- [9]Noviasky J Lo V Luft DD Which medications can be split without compromising efficacy and safety? J Fam Pract 2006; 55: 707 9. 16882445
- [12]Bosworth HB Brown JN Danus S Evaluation of a packaging approach to improve cholesterol medication adherence. Am J Manag Care 2017; 23: e280 6. 29087166
- [13]Verrue C Mehuys E Boussery K Is splitting tablets dangerous? Nurs Times 2011; 107: 23 123. 21667663
- [14]Rodenhuis N De Smet PA Barends DM The rationale of scored tablets as dosage form. Eur J Pharm Sci 2004; 21: 305 8. 14757502
- [15]Eserian J Lombardo M Chagas J Actual versus expected doses of half tablets containing prescribed psychoactive substances: a systematic review. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord 2018; 20: 29469240
- [16]Richey RH Hughes C Craig JV A systematic review of the use of dosage form manipulation to obtain required doses to inform use of manipulation in paediatric practice. Int J Pharm 2017; 518: 155 66. 28040560
- [17]Higgins JPT Douglas GA Gotzsche PC The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 242. PMC3196245 22008217
- [18]Guyatt G Oxman AD Akl EA GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 383 94. 21195583
- [20]Nyaga VN Arbyn M Aerts MJAoPH Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data. Arch Public Health 2014; 72: 39. 25810908 PMC4373114
- [21]Habib WA Alanizi AS Abdelhamid MM Accuracy of tablet splitting: comparison study between hand splitting and tablet cutter. Saudi Pharm J 2014; 22: 454 9. 25473334 PMC4246398
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Does splitting a tablet obtain an accurate dose? A systematic review and meta‐ analysis
Chaudhri, K., Kearney, M., Di Tanna, G. L., Gnanenthiran, S. R., Day, R. O., Rodgers, A., & Atkins, E. R. (2022) · Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research · doi:10.1002/jppr.1843 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Self-citationJager, L., Koopmans, P., Westra, N., Nijland, M., Hooge, M. L.-D., & Munnink, T. O. (2026) · Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice · doi:10.1177/10781552261478573
- Authors
- Chaudhri, K., Kearney, M., Di Tanna, G. L., Day, R. O., Rodgers, A., & Atkins, E. R.
- Affiliations
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- The George Institute for Global Health (AU)
- The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Chaudhri, Kanika
- Venue
- Medicine
- Published
- 2019-10
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 42
- Pages
- e17189
- ISSN
- 0025-7974 (ISSN-L)
- 1536-5964
- PMC
- PMC6824647
- OpenAlex
- W2980935472
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 1.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- National Heart Foundation of Australia (101884)
- University of New South Wales
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
- Keywords
- tablet splitting, dose accuracy, weight variation, dose adjustment, primary care prescribing, medication administration, cost reduction
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Humans, Tablets
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