Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 668

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Effect of Electronic Prescribing on Medication Errors and Adverse Drug Events: A Systematic Review

Open access
Ammenwerth, E., Schnell-Inderst, P., Machan, C., Siebert, U.·2008·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

The objective of this systematic review is to analyse the relative risk reduction on medication error and adverse drug events (ADE) by computerized physician order entry systems (CPOE). We included controlled field studies and pretest-posttest studies, evaluating all types of CPOE systems, drugs and clinical settings. We present the results in evidence tables, calculate the risk ratio with 95% confidence interval and perform subgroup analyses for categorical factors, such as the level of care, patient group, type of drug, type of system, functionality of the system, comparison group type, study design, and the method for detecting errors. Of the 25 studies that analysed the effects on the medication error rate, 23 showed a significant relative risk reduction of 13% to 99%. Six of the nine studies that analysed the effects on potential ADEs showed a significant relative risk reduction of 35% to 98%. Four of the seven studies that analysed the effect on ADEs showed a significant relative risk reduction of 30% to 84%. Reporting quality and study quality was often insufficient to exclude major sources of bias. Studies on home-grown systems, studies comparing electronic prescribing to handwriting prescribing, and studies using manual chart review to detect errors seem to show a higher relative risk reduction than other studies. Concluding, it seems that electronic prescribing can reduce the risk for medication errors and ADE. However, studies differ substantially in their setting, design, quality, and results. To further improve the evidence-base of health informatics, more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed, especially to cover a wider range of clinical and geographic settings. In addition, reporting quality of health informatics evaluation studies has to be substantially improved.

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 · 10.1197/jamia.m2667

Cites

69 of 69 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 69 references

Cited by

See all 668

Metadata

Authors
Ammenwerth, E., Schnell-Inderst, P., Machan, C., & Siebert, U.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2008-09-01
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
585-600
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2167062075
Cited by
668
References
69
FWCI
7.44
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: The Effect of Electronic Prescribing on Medication Errors and Adverse Drug Events: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1197/jamia.m2667
The paper
Ammenwerth, E., Schnell-Inderst, P., Machan, C., & Siebert, U. (2008). The Effect of Electronic Prescribing on Medication Errors and Adverse Drug Events: A Systematic Review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.m2667

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.