Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 256

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systematic Review of Medication Errors in Pediatric Patients

Ghaleb, Maisoon Abdullah, Barber, Nick, Franklin, Bryony D, Yeung, Vincent WS, Khaki, Zahra F, Wong, Ian CK·2006·Annals of Pharmacotherapy

Abstract

Objective: To systematically locate and review studies that have investigated the incidence of medication errors (MEs) in pediatric inpatients and identify common errors. Methods: A systematic search of studies related to MEs in children was performed using the following databases: MEDLINE (1951–April 2006), EMBASE (1966–April 2006), Pharm-line (1978–April 2006), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970–April 2006), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1982–April 2006), and British Nursing Index (1994–April 2006). Studies of the incidence and nature of MEs in pediatrics were included. The title, abstract, or full article was reviewed for relevance; any study not related to MEs in children was excluded. Results: Three methods were used to detect MEs in the studies reviewed: spontaneous reporting (n = 10), medication order or chart review (n = 14), or observation (n = 8). There was great variation in the definitions of ME used and the error rates reported. The most common type of ME was dosing error, often involving 10 times the actual dose required. Antibiotics and sedatives were the most common classes of drugs associated with MEs; these are probably among the most common drugs prescribed. Conclusions: Interpretation of the literature was hindered by variation in definitions employed by different researchers, varying research methods and setting, and a lack of theory-based research. Overall, it would appear that our initial concern about MEs in pediatrics has been validated; however, we do not know the actual size of the problem. Further work to determine the incidence and causes of MEs in pediatrics is urgently needed, as well as evaluation of the best interventions to reduce them.

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 · 10.1345/aph.1g717

Cites

45 of 45 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 45 references

Cited by

See all 256

Metadata

Authors
Ghaleb, M. A., Barber, N., Franklin, B. D., Yeung, V. W., Khaki, Z. F., & Wong, I. C.
Venue
Annals of Pharmacotherapy
Published
2006-10
Volume
40
Issue
10
Pages
1766-1776
ISSN
  • 0012-6578 (ISSN-L)
  • 1060-0280
  • 1542-6270
OpenAlex
W2095925831
Cited by
256
References
45
FWCI
1.77
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: Systematic Review of Medication Errors in Pediatric Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1345/aph.1g717
The paper
Ghaleb, M. A., Barber, N., Franklin, B. D., Yeung, V. W., Khaki, Z. F., & Wong, I. C. (2006). Systematic Review of Medication Errors in Pediatric Patients. Annals of Pharmacotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1g717

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.