↓ Skip to main content

Medication errors with antituberculosis therapy in an inpatient, academic setting: forgotten but not gone

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Pharmacy & Therapeutics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
11 X users

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Medication errors with antituberculosis therapy in an inpatient, academic setting: forgotten but not gone
Published in
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy & Therapeutics, January 2016
DOI 10.1111/jcpt.12347
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Tuberculosis, an infectious disease caused by the bacteria Mycobacterium tuberculosis, has significant public health implications. Despite the decreasing prevalence of tuberculosis cases and the availability of well-established treatment guidelines, errors with antituberculosis medications remain a concern as clinician experience with the infection has waned and the goal of eradicating tuberculosis has remained unfulfilled. Whereas inappropriate use of other anti-infective classes has been extensively studied, the evaluation of medication errors associated with antituberculosis therapy has been limited to a small number of studies conducted more than two decades ago. This study evaluated the prevalence of inpatient medication errors with antituberculosis therapy in patients with suspected or confirmed tuberculosis disease. All admitted patients treated with at least one antituberculosis medication between July 2010 and June 2013 were evaluated for inclusion in the retrospective study. Multidrug antituberculosis regimens were reviewed for medication errors, which were categorized as dosing errors, drug interactions, omission of therapy and inappropriate continuation of therapy in the presence of drug toxicity. Appropriate management was determined in accordance with the national guidelines for the treatment of tuberculosis, as well as guidelines on the use of antiretroviral agents for patients with both human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and tuberculosis disease. The impact of infectious diseases and pulmonary consultation on the prevalence of medication errors was also examined. More than half of all study patients (44/72, 61%) experienced at least one medication error associated with antituberculosis therapy. Dosing errors were the most common type of medication error identified and were predominantly related to weight-based dosing. Seven dosing errors were related to drug interactions between rifamycins and antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected patients. Medication error rates were similar between patients receiving consultation from infectious diseases and/or pulmonary specialties and those without consultation. The large majority of antituberculosis medication errors (56/66 errors, 85%) remained uncorrected during the patient's hospital admission. Medication errors associated with antituberculosis therapy remain a common occurrence in the current clinical practice setting. Greater vigilance when prescribing medications for tuberculosis disease is needed.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Ireland 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 4 6%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 21 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 30%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 24 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 27 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,190,903
of 34,517,289 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Pharmacy & Therapeutics
#114
of 1,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,312
of 450,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Pharmacy & Therapeutics
#7
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,517,289 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,845 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 450,142 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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.