Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,100Open textbooks2Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology107Genetics and Genomics95Neuroscience110Cardiovascular Medicine105Immunology90Pharmacology99Molecular Biology100Infectious Diseases102Rare and Inherited Diseases106Clinical Research98Anatomy and Physiology542Drugs and Chemicals546
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Pharmacology›Medication Errors
Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Medication Errors

Pharmacology · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-10-29 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 5 min read

Errors in prescribing, dispensing, or administering medication with the result that the patient fails to receive the correct drug or the indicated proper drug dosage.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (891 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

Errors in prescribing, dispensing, or administering medication with the result that the patient fails to receive the correct drug or the indicated proper drug dosage.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Errors, Medication; Error, Medication; Medication Error; Drug Use Error; Drug Use Errors; Error, Drug Use; Look-Alike Drug Name Errors; Look Alike Drug Name Errors.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Drug Therapy; Medical Errors
Narrower topics
Medication Reconciliation; Near Miss, Healthcare; Inappropriate Prescribing
See also
Drug Overdose

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 22,382 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Medication Errors” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 5,034 of them (22.5%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 9,665 records.

Reviews account for 2,301 records (10.3%) and meta-analyses for 162. Randomized controlled trials number 556 (2.5%) as a share of all records on the topic.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 2,932 records; 2000-2009: 4,751 records; 2010-2019: 9,665 records; 2020 onward: 5,034 records2,932through 19994,7512000-20099,6652010-20195,0342020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 19992,932
2000-20094,751
2010-20199,665
2020 onward5,034
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 10.3 percent; Meta-analyses: 0.7 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 2.5 percentReviews10.3% (2,301)Meta-analyses0.7% (162)Randomized controlled trials2.5% (556)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 22,382 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews2,30110.3%
Meta-analyses1620.7%
Randomized controlled trials5562.5%

Method: PubMed query "Medication Errors"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.

Reading the evidence in pharmacology

Drug evidence builds in layers: laboratory pharmacology describes how a compound acts, pharmacokinetic studies describe how the body handles it, and randomized trials test whether it helps and what harms it causes. Post-marketing surveillance and observational studies reveal rarer adverse effects but cannot prove causation. This page is educational and is not a recommendation to start, stop or change any medicine; decisions about treatment belong with a qualified clinician.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Large language model as clinical decision support system augments medication safety in 16 clinical specialties
Ong JCL, Jin L, Elangovan K, Lim GYS, Lim DYZ, Sng GGR, et al.
2025Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
33cc by
PMID 40997804 · DOI · PMC12629785
Deprescribing in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Linsky AM, Motala A, Booth M, Lawson E, Shekelle PG
2025Meta-analysis
Design not recorded in structured metadata
21cc by
PMID 40338546 · DOI · PMC12062908
International expert panel's potentially inappropriate prescribing cascades (PIPC) list
Rochon PA, O'Mahony D, Cherubini A, Onder G, Petrovic M, Dalton K, et al.
2025Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
10cc by
PMID 40742670 · DOI · PMC12712104
Nonlinear Associations Between Frailty and Medication Burden in Hospitalized Older Adults
Umegaki H, Nakashima H, Mizokami F, Yamada Y, Watanabe K, Fujisawa C, et al.
2026Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
6cc by
PMID 42266173 · DOI · PMC13250668

Large language model as clinical decision support system augments medication safety in 16 clinical specialties [1]

Research article Ong JCL, Jin L, Elangovan K, Lim GYS, Lim DYZ, Sng GGR, et al. · · 2025 · cited 33 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as tools to support healthcare delivery, from automating tasks to aiding clinical decision-making.
Closing excerpt
Effective LLM integration for complex tasks like medication chart reviews can enhance healthcare professional performance, improving patient safety.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (150 words)

Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as tools to support healthcare delivery, from automating tasks to aiding clinical decision-making. This study evaluated LLMs as alternative to rule-based alert systems, focusing on their ability to identify prescribing errors. This was designed as a prospective, cross-over, open-label study involving 91 error scenarios based on 40 clinical vignettes across 16 medical and surgical specialties. We developed and validated five LLM models using a retrieval-augmented generation framework. The best-performing model evaluated three different implementation strategies: LLM-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) alone, pharmacist plus LLM-based CDSS (co-pilot), and pharmacist alone. The co-pilot arm demonstrated the best performance with an accuracy of 61% (precision 0.57, recall 0.61, and F1 0.59). In detecting errors posing serious harm, the co-pilot mode increased accuracy by 1.5-fold over the pharmacist alone. Effective LLM integration for complex tasks like medication chart reviews can enhance healthcare professional performance, improving patient safety.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 40997804 · DOI · PMC12629785

Deprescribing in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [2]

Meta-analysis Linsky AM, Motala A, Booth M, Lawson E, Shekelle PG · · 2025 · cited 21 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
ImportanceDeprescribing has the potential to improve patient safety and quality of care by reducing polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), which in turn may reduce adverse drug events.
Closing excerpt
While the individual-level association was very small, on an aggregated population level, the outcomes may be large, given the high prevalence of polypharmacy and PIMs in community-dwelling older adults.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (356 words)

ImportanceDeprescribing has the potential to improve patient safety and quality of care by reducing polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), which in turn may reduce adverse drug events. Questions remain about the effectiveness of deprescribing interventions in outpatient settings.ObjectiveTo determine the association of deprescribing interventions with reducing medication count and PIMs in community-dwelling older adults.Data sourcesIncluded studies were English-language human studies in PubMed and the Cochrane Library published from January 2019 to July 26, 2024, and results were supplemented with reference-mining and expert consultation.Study selectionStudies were eligible if they were solely or primarily about deprescribing, focused on community-dwelling adults, were multisite, used a randomized trial design, and reported on the primary or secondary outcome.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors extracted study design, intervention characteristics, population characteristics, and follow-up. Outcomes were extracted by the statistician and checked by a second author. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method. The study was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the number of PIMs or total medications, and the secondary outcome was proportion of persons prescribed at least 1 PIM.ResultsTwo authors independently screened 1586 titles from PubMed and Cochrane and 33 from other sources; 321 abstracts and 133 full-text studies were further reviewed, and disagreements were reconciled through discussion, resulting in 17 studies in 18 publications. A total of 8 studies of interventions targeting multiple medications were identified for primary outcome analysis; the random-effects pooled analysis found a mean difference of -0.14 (95% CI, -0.27 to -0.01) medications prescribed. A total of 6 studies of interventions targeting multiple medications were identified for secondary outcome analysis; the random effects pooled analysis found no significant reduction in the proportion of persons prescribed at least 1 PIM (odds ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.74 to 1.14]).Conclusions and relevanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis found moderate-certainty evidence that deprescribing interventions were associated with reduced PIM and medication counts in community-dwelling older adults. While the individual-level association was very small, on an aggregated population level, the outcomes may be large, given the high prevalence of polypharmacy and PIMs in community-dwelling older adults.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 40338546 · DOI · PMC12062908

International expert panel's potentially inappropriate prescribing cascades (PIPC) list [3]

Research article Rochon PA, O'Mahony D, Cherubini A, Onder G, Petrovic M, Dalton K, et al. · · 2025 · cited 10 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
PurposePrescribing cascades contribute to potentially inappropriate prescribing, especially among older adults.
Closing excerpt
The PIPC list provides a crucial tool for clinicians and researchers to detect potentially inappropriate prescribing patterns and to foster efforts to improve medication safety.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (247 words)

PurposePrescribing cascades contribute to potentially inappropriate prescribing, especially among older adults. With the prescribing cascade framework maturation, it is important to distinguish potentially inappropriate from potentially appropriate prescribing cascades. The objective was to create a comprehensive consensus list of Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing Cascades (PIPCs).MethodsA prescribing cascade inventory was compiled using published lists. An international panel of 12 experts in geriatric medicine and pharmacology was selected. Panelists participated in a Delphi consensus process completing two questionnaire rounds and one discussion round.ResultsA total of 107 proposed prescribing cascades were identified. After Questionnaire Round 1, 56 prescribing cascades achieved a rating of agree or strongly agree by ≥ 75% of the panelists and were included in the PIPC list. For 32 of the 107 proposed cascades, 50-74% of panelists provided a rating of agree or strongly agree, and were moved to Round 2. In Questionnaire Round 2, 9 of 32 proposed cascades achieved a rating of agree or strongly agree by ≥ 75% of panelists and were included in the final PIPC list. For 14 prescribing cascades, 50-74% of panelists provided a rating of agree or strongly agree, and were included in the Discussion Round. After discussion, no additional prescribing cascades were included.ConclusionAn explicit list of 65 PIPCs was created using a rigorous Delphi consensus process conducted by international experts on pharmacotherapy for older adults. The PIPC list provides a crucial tool for clinicians and researchers to detect potentially inappropriate prescribing patterns and to foster efforts to improve medication safety.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 40742670 · DOI · PMC12712104

Nonlinear Associations Between Frailty and Medication Burden in Hospitalized Older Adults [4]

Research article Umegaki H, Nakashima H, Mizokami F, Yamada Y, Watanabe K, Fujisawa C, et al. · · 2026 · cited 6 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
AimTo examine how medication burden varies across frailty stages in hospitalized older adults, with a focus on potential nonlinear associations: METHODS: We analyzed a multicenter cohort of hospitalized adults aged ≥ 65 years.
Closing excerpt
These stage-dependent patterns suggest that moderate frailty may represent a window for targeted medication review and deprescribing, supporting frailty-stratified approaches to medication management in acute care.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (138 words)

AimTo examine how medication burden varies across frailty stages in hospitalized older adults, with a focus on potential nonlinear associations: METHODS: We analyzed a multicenter cohort of hospitalized adults aged ≥ 65 years. Frailty was assessed using the preadmission Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Associations between CFS and total medication count, potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) count, and anticholinergic burden (Japanese Anticholinergic Risk Scale) were evaluated using restricted cubic spline models adjusted for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Primary analyses were conducted in participants with complete data (n = 1075).ResultsCFS showed significant associations with all medication-related indicators (all overall p ConclusionsMedication burden is strongly and nonlinearly associated with frailty in hospitalized older adults. These stage-dependent patterns suggest that moderate frailty may represent a window for targeted medication review and deprescribing, supporting frailty-stratified approaches to medication management in acute care.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42266173 · DOI · PMC13250668

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article The effect of electronic prescribing on medication errors and adverse drug events: a systematic review [5]
    Ammenwerth E, Schnell-Inderst P, Machan C, Siebert U · J Am Med Inform Assoc · 2008 · cited 377 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes on clinical outcomes at hospital transitions: a systematic review and meta-analysis [6]
    Mekonnen AB, McLachlan AJ, Brien JA · BMJ Open · 2016 · cited 346 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Inappropriate opioid prescription after surgery [7]
    Neuman MD, Bateman BT, Wunsch H · Lancet · 2019 · cited 315 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Pharmacy-led medication reconciliation programmes at hospital transitions: a systematic review and meta-analysis [8]
    Mekonnen AB, McLachlan AJ, Brien JA · J Clin Pharm Ther · 2016 · cited 210 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Deprescribing in Older Adults With Cardiovascular Disease [9]
    Krishnaswami A, Steinman MA, Goyal P, Zullo AR, Anderson TS, Birtcher KK, et al. · J Am Coll Cardiol · 2019 · cited 167 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Prevalence and Nature of Medication Errors and Medication-Related Harm Following Discharge from Hospital to Community Settings: A Systematic Review [10]
    Alqenae FA, Steinke D, Keers RN · Drug Saf · 2020 · cited 159 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Ong JCL, Jin L, Elangovan K, Lim GYS, Lim DYZ, Sng GGR, et al.. Large language model as clinical decision support system augments medication safety in 16 clinical specialties. . 2025. PMID 40997804 · DOI · PMC12629785
  2. Linsky AM, Motala A, Booth M, Lawson E, Shekelle PG. Deprescribing in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. . 2025. PMID 40338546 · DOI · PMC12062908
  3. Rochon PA, O'Mahony D, Cherubini A, Onder G, Petrovic M, Dalton K, et al.. International expert panel's potentially inappropriate prescribing cascades (PIPC) list. . 2025. PMID 40742670 · DOI · PMC12712104
  4. Umegaki H, Nakashima H, Mizokami F, Yamada Y, Watanabe K, Fujisawa C, et al.. Nonlinear Associations Between Frailty and Medication Burden in Hospitalized Older Adults. . 2026. PMID 42266173 · DOI · PMC13250668
  5. Ammenwerth E, Schnell-Inderst P, Machan C, Siebert U. The effect of electronic prescribing on medication errors and adverse drug events: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008. PMID 18579832 · DOI · PMC2528040
  6. Mekonnen AB, McLachlan AJ, Brien JA. Effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes on clinical outcomes at hospital transitions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2016. PMID 26908524 · DOI · PMC4769405
  7. Neuman MD, Bateman BT, Wunsch H. Inappropriate opioid prescription after surgery. Lancet. 2019. PMID 30983590 · DOI · PMC6556783
  8. Mekonnen AB, McLachlan AJ, Brien JA. Pharmacy-led medication reconciliation programmes at hospital transitions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2016. PMID 26913812 · DOI
  9. Krishnaswami A, Steinman MA, Goyal P, Zullo AR, Anderson TS, Birtcher KK, et al.. Deprescribing in Older Adults With Cardiovascular Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019. PMID 31118153 · DOI · PMC6724706
  10. Alqenae FA, Steinke D, Keers RN. Prevalence and Nature of Medication Errors and Medication-Related Harm Following Discharge from Hospital to Community Settings: A Systematic Review. Drug Saf. 2020. PMID 32125666 · DOI · PMC7235049

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-10-29.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Medication ReconciliationPharmacology
  • Inappropriate PrescribingPharmacology
  • Antipsychotic AgentsPharmacology
  • Drug CarriersPharmacology
  • Drug InteractionsPharmacology
  • Drug ResistancePharmacology

All 99 articles in Pharmacology →

At a glance

22,382
PubMed records on this heading
22%
published since 2020
2,301
review articles
556
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-29; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Medication ReconciliationPharmacology
  • Inappropriate PrescribingPharmacology
  • Antipsychotic AgentsPharmacology
  • Drug CarriersPharmacology
  • Drug InteractionsPharmacology

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Legal · Support