Cited by 73Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsHospital Admissions and Outcomes

Outcome of Adverse Events and Medical Errors in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Ahmed, Adil H., Giri, Jyothsna, Kashyap, Rahul, Singh, Balwinder, Dong, Yue, Kilickaya, Oguz, Erwin, Patricia J., Murad, M. Hassan +1 more·2015·American Journal of Medical Quality

Abstract

Adverse events and medical errors (AEs/MEs) are more likely to occur in the intensive care unit (ICU). Information about the incidence and outcomes of such events is conflicting. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to examine the effects of MEs/AEs on mortality and hospital and ICU lengths of stay among ICU patients. Potentially eligible studies were identified from 4 major databases. Of 902 studies screened, 12 met the inclusion criteria, 10 of which are included in the quantitative analysis. Patients with 1 or more MEs/AEs (vs no MEs/AEs) had a nonsignificant increase in mortality (odds ratio = 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.98-2.14) but significantly longer hospital and ICU stays; the mean difference (95% CI) was 8.9 (3.3-14.7) days for hospital stay and 6.8 (0.2-13.4) days for ICU. The ICU environment is associated with a substantial incidence of MEs/AEs, and patients with MEs/AEs have worse outcomes than those with no MEs/AEs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1062860613514770

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Medical errors and adverse events among critically ill patients are associated with worse outcomes.

    “Medical errors and adverse events among critically ill patients are associated with worse outcomes”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ahmed, A. H., Giri, J., Kashyap, R., Singh, B., Dong, Y., Kilickaya, O., Erwin, P. J., Murad, M. H., & Pickering, B. W.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
Venue
American Journal of Medical Quality
Published
2013-12-19
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
23-30
ISSN
  • 1062-8606 (ISSN-L)
  • 1555-824X
OpenAlex
W2098303005
Cited by
73
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
5.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Medical Quality (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
Keywords
adverse events, medical errors, intensive care unit, mortality, length of hospital stay, patient outcomes, intensive care
MeSH terms
Humans, Intensive Care Units, Length of Stay, Incidence, Hospital Mortality, Medical Errors, Quality Indicators, Health Care, Checklist, Patient Safety

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