Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 284

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What is the epidemiology of medication errors, error-related adverse events and risk factors for errors in adults managed in community care contexts? A systematic review of the international literature

Open access
Assiri, Ghadah Asaad, Shebl, Nada Atef, Mahmoud, Mansour Adam, Aloudah, Nouf, Grant, Elizabeth, Aljadhey, Hisham, Sheikh, Aziz·2018·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the epidemiology of medication errors and error-related adverse events in adults in primary care, ambulatory care and patients’ homes. Design: Systematic review. Data source: Six international databases were searched for publications between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2015. Data extraction and analysis: Two researchers independently extracted data from eligible studies and assessed the quality of these using established instruments. Synthesis of data was informed by an appreciation of the medicines’ management process and the conceptual framework from the International Classification for Patient Safety. Results: 60 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 53 studies focused on medication errors, 3 on error-related adverse events and 4 on risk factors only. The prevalence of prescribing errors was reported in 46 studies: prevalence estimates ranged widely from 2% to 94%. Inappropriate prescribing was the most common type of error reported. Only one study reported the prevalence of monitoring errors, finding that incomplete therapeutic/safety laboratory-test monitoring occurred in 73% of patients. The incidence of preventable adverse drug events (ADEs) was estimated as 15/1000 person-years, the prevalence of drug–drug interaction-related adverse drug reactions as 7% and the prevalence of preventable ADE as 0.4%. A number of patient, healthcare professional and medication-related risk factors were identified, including the number of medications used by the patient, increased patient age, the number of comorbidities, use of anticoagulants, cases where more than one physician was involved in patients’ care and care being provided by family physicians/general practitioners. Conclusion: A very wide variation in the medication error and error-related adverse events rates is reported in the studies, this reflecting heterogeneity in the populations studied, study designs employed and outcomes evaluated. This review has identified important limitations and discrepancies in the methodologies used and gaps in the literature on the epidemiology and outcomes of medication errors in community settings.

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019101

Cites

76 of 76 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 76 references

Cited by

See all 284

Metadata

Authors
Assiri, G. A., Shebl, N. A., Mahmoud, M. A., Aloudah, N., Grant, E., Aljadhey, H., & Sheikh, A.
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2018-05
Volume
8
Issue
5
Pages
e019101
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2800253352
Cited by
284
References
76
FWCI
9.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: What is the epidemiology of medication errors, error-related adverse events and risk factors for errors in adults managed in community care contexts? A systematic review of the international literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019101
The paper
Assiri, G. A., Shebl, N. A., Mahmoud, M. A., Aloudah, N., Grant, E., Aljadhey, H., & Sheikh, A. (2018). What is the epidemiology of medication errors, error-related adverse events and risk factors for errors in adults managed in community care contexts? A systematic review of the international literature. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019101

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.