↓ Skip to main content

A systematic literature review on strategies to avoid look-alike errors of labels

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
Title
A systematic literature review on strategies to avoid look-alike errors of labels
Published in
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00228-018-2471-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karin H. M. Larmené-Beld, E. Kim Alting, Katja Taxis

Abstract

Unclear labeling has been recognized as an important cause of look-alike medication errors. The aim of this literature review is to systematically evaluate the current evidence on strategies to minimize medication errors due to look-alike labels. A literature search of PubMed and EMBASE for all available years was performed independently by two reviewers. Original studies assessing strategies to minimize medication errors due to look-alike labels focusing on readability of labels by health professionals or consumers were included. Data were analyzed descriptively due to the variability of study methods. Sixteen studies were included. Thirteen studies were performed in a laboratory and three in a healthcare setting. Eleven studies evaluated Tall Man lettering, i.e., capitalizing parts of the drug name, two color-coding, and three studies other strategies. In six studies, lower error rates were found for the Tall Man letter strategy; one showed significantly higher error rates. Effects of Tall Man lettering on response time were more varied. A study in the hospital setting did not show an effect on the potential look-alike sound-alike error rate by introducing Tall Man lettering. Color-coding had no effect on the prevention of syringe-swaps in one study. Studies performed in laboratory settings showed that Tall Man lettering contributed to a better readability of medication labels. Only few studies evaluated other strategies such as color-coding. More evidence, especially from real-life setting is needed to support safe labeling strategies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Researcher 8 7%
Professor 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 36 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 12%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 42 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 October 2023.
All research outputs
#5,098,909
of 25,287,709 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#487
of 2,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,833
of 332,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#8
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,287,709 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,736 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,624 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.