Prevalence of errors in the preparation and administration of intravenous drugs in adults: Meta-analysis with meta-regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the average prevalence of errors in the preparation and administration of intravenous medications in a hospital by means of a meta-analysis. Method: Systematic review through meta-analysis with meta-regression, registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022324431), with a search in the seven databases, using the Rayyan QCRY®. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The meta-analysis was calculated using the random-effect model and adjusted by the inverse of the variance, and analyses were carried out to investigate heterogeneity. Results: 34 primary studies were included. The estimated prevalence of errors in the preparation and administration of intravenous drugs was 41,23% (IC95% 30,51–51,96; I2 = 100,00%). Conclusion: The results reflect the lack of health systems official data on the reporting of errors in institutions, the basis for the effective strategies that ensure for patient safety in the process medicated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.085 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".