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.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 2,932 |
| 2000-2009 | 4,751 |
| 2010-2019 | 9,665 |
| 2020 onward | 5,034 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 2,301 | 10.3% |
| Meta-analyses | 162 | 0.7% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 556 | 2.5% |
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 / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Large language model as clinical decision support system augments medication safety in 16 clinical specialties | 2025 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 33 | cc by PMID 40997804 · DOI · PMC12629785 |
| Deprescribing in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis | 2025 | Meta-analysis Design not recorded in structured metadata | 21 | cc by PMID 40338546 · DOI · PMC12062908 |
| International expert panel's potentially inappropriate prescribing cascades (PIPC) list | 2025 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 10 | cc by PMID 40742670 · DOI · PMC12712104 |
| Nonlinear Associations Between Frailty and Medication Burden in Hospitalized Older Adults | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 6 | cc by PMID 42266173 · DOI · PMC13250668 |
Large language model as clinical decision support system augments medication safety in 16 clinical specialties [1]
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]
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]
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]
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]
- Research article Effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes on clinical outcomes at hospital transitions: a systematic review and meta-analysis [6]
- Research article Inappropriate opioid prescription after surgery [7]
- Research article Pharmacy-led medication reconciliation programmes at hospital transitions: a systematic review and meta-analysis [8]
- Research article Deprescribing in Older Adults With Cardiovascular Disease [9]
- Research article Prevalence and Nature of Medication Errors and Medication-Related Harm Following Discharge from Hospital to Community Settings: A Systematic Review [10]
References
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Neuman MD, Bateman BT, Wunsch H. Inappropriate opioid prescription after surgery. Lancet. 2019. PMID 30983590 · DOI · PMC6556783
- 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
- 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
- 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.