8/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
1/23
Search BMJ Group
Search BMJ Gro
Journals
Jobs
Education
Decision support
Quality improvement
Community
BMJ GroupThis site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.Find out morehere
Edition:India
Subscribe
My account
BMA Members
Sign inBMJHelping doctors make better decisions
Advanced search
Home
Research
Education
News
Comment
Multimedia
Careers
Specialties
Archive
http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-journalshttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-journalshttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-jobshttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-jobshttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-training-and-cpdhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-training-and-cpdhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-decision-supporthttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-decision-supporthttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-qualityhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-qualityhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-communityhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-communityhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-grouphttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-grouphttp://group.bmj.com/group/about/legal/privacy#cookieshttp://group.bmj.com/group/about/legal/privacy#cookieshttp://group.bmj.com/group/about/legal/privacy#cookieshttp://group.bmj.com/group/about/legal/privacy#cookieshttp://www.bmj.com/subscribehttp://www.bmj.com/subscribehttp://registration.bma.org.uk/bmjverification/?url=http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?sso=http://registration.bma.org.uk/bmjverification/?url=http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?sso=http://www.bmj.com/http://www.bmj.com/http://www.bmj.com/search/advancedhttp://www.bmj.com/search/advancedhttp://www.bmj.com/http://www.bmj.com/http://www.bmj.com/india/researchhttp://www.bmj.com/india/researchhttp://www.bmj.com/india/educationhttp://www.bmj.com/india/educationhttp://www.bmj.com/india/newshttp://www.bmj.com/india/newshttp://www.bmj.com/india/commenthttp://www.bmj.com/india/commenthttp://www.bmj.com/multimediahttp://www.bmj.com/multimediahttp://www.bmj.com/careershttp://www.bmj.com/careershttp://www.bmj.com/specialtieshttp://www.bmj.com/specialtieshttp://www.bmj.com/archivehttp://www.bmj.com/archivehttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/L19/2023755977/Top/BMJ/bmjj-ipadbannerindia-230712/BMJ_app_468x60_01.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/L19/2023755977/Top/BMJ/bmjj-ipadbannerindia-230712/BMJ_app_468x60_01.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/L19/2023755977/Top/BMJ/bmjj-ipadbannerindia-230712/BMJ_app_468x60_01.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/L19/2023755977/Top/BMJ/bmjj-ipadbannerindia-230712/BMJ_app_468x60_01.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/L19/2023755977/Top/BMJ/bmjj-ipadbannerindia-230712/BMJ_app_468x60_01.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/L19/2023755977/Top/BMJ/bmjj-ipadbannerindia-230712/BMJ_app_468x60_01.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/L19/2023755977/Top/BMJ/bmjj-ipadbannerindia-230712/BMJ_app_468x60_01.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/L19/2023755977/Top/BMJ/bmjj-ipadbannerindia-230712/BMJ_app_468x60_01.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/L19/2023755977/Top/BMJ/bmjj-ipadbannerindia-230712/BMJ_app_468x60_01.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/L19/2023755977/Top/BMJ/bmjj-ipadbannerindia-230712/BMJ_app_468x60_01.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/L19/2023755977/Top/BMJ/bmjj-ipadbannerindia-230712/BMJ_app_468x60_01.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/L19/2023755977/Top/BMJ/bmjj-ipadbannerindia-230712/BMJ_app_468x60_01.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://www.bmj.com/archivehttp://www.bmj.com/specialtieshttp://www.bmj.com/careershttp://www.bmj.com/multimediahttp://www.bmj.com/india/commenthttp://www.bmj.com/india/newshttp://www.bmj.com/india/educationhttp://www.bmj.com/india/researchhttp://www.bmj.com/http://www.bmj.com/search/advancedhttp://www.bmj.com/http://registration.bma.org.uk/bmjverification/?url=http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?sso=http://www.bmj.com/subscribehttp://group.bmj.com/group/about/legal/privacy#cookieshttp://group.bmj.com/group/about/legal/privacy#cookieshttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-grouphttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-grouphttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-grouphttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-communityhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-qualityhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-decision-supporthttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-training-and-cpdhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-jobshttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#global-tab-journals8/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
2/23
From1840
To2013 Nov
Limit byPAPER
Comparison of three methods for estimating rates ofadverse events and rates of preventable adverseevents in acute care hospitalsBMJ2004;328doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7433.199(Published 22 January 2004)Cite this as:BMJ2004;328:199 Epidemiologic studies
Screening (epidemiology)
Screening (public health)
Article
Related content
Read responses (4)
Article metrics
1. Philippe Michel, medical director([email protected])1,2. Jean Luc Quenon, epidemiologist1,3. Anne Marie de Sarasqueta, public health nurse1,4. Olivier Scemama, epidemiologist1
Author Affiliations
1. Correspondence to: P Michel
Accepted16 October 2003Abstract
ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness, reliability, and acceptability of estimating rates of adverse events and ratesof preventable adverse events using three methods: cross sectional (data gathered in one day), prospective (data
gathered during hospital stay), and retrospective (review of medical records).
DesignIndependent assessment of three methods applied to one sample.Setting37 wards in seven hospitals (three public, four private) in southwestern France.Participants778 patients: medical (n = 278), surgical (n = 263), and obstetric (n = 237).Main outcome measuresThe main outcome measures were the proportion of cases (patients with at least oneadverse event) identified by each method compared with a reference list of cases confirmed by ward staffand the
http://www.bmj.com/specialties/epidemiologic-studieshttp://www.bmj.com/specialties/epidemiologic-studieshttp://www.bmj.com/specialties/screening-epidemiologyhttp://www.bmj.com/specialties/screening-epidemiologyhttp://www.bmj.com/specialties/screening-public-healthhttp://www.bmj.com/specialties/screening-public-healthhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=relatedhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=relatedhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=responseshttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=responseshttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=metricshttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=metricsmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#aff-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#aff-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#aff-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#aff-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#aff-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#aff-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#aff-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#aff-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#aff-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#aff-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#aff-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#aff-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#aff-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#aff-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#aff-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#aff-1mailto:[email protected]://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=metricshttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=responseshttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=relatedhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/specialties/screening-public-healthhttp://www.bmj.com/specialties/screening-epidemiologyhttp://www.bmj.com/specialties/epidemiologic-studies8/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
3/23
proportion of preventable cases (patients with at least one preventable adverse event). Secondary outcome
measures were inter-rater reliability of screening and identification, perceived workload, and face validity of results.
ResultsThe prospective and retrospective methods identified similar numbers of medical and surgical cases (70%and 66% of the total, respectively) but the prospective method identified more preventable cases (64% and 40%,
respectively), had good reliability for identification (= 0.83), represented an acceptable workload, and had higher
face validity. The cross sectional method showed a large number of false positives and identified none of the most
serious adverse events. None of the methods was appropriate for obstetrics.
ConclusionThe prospective method of data collection may be more appropriate for epidemiological studies that aimto convince clinical teams that their errors contribute significantly to adverse events, to study organisational and
human factors, and to assess the impact of risk reduction programmes.
Introduction
Review of medical records is considered the benchmark for estimating the extent of medical injuries in hospitals.1
7But the limitations of this retrospective method raise the issue of alternative methods, especially since theepidemiology of adverse events andmedical errors is moving towards other objectives, such as assessing the impact
of risk reduction programmes and studying organisational and human factors.810
We compared prospective and cross sectional methods for data collection with review of medical records for
assessing rates of adverse events and rates of preventable adverse events in acute care hospitals in France.
Although the cross sectional method is used to estimate prevalence and not incidence, we chose to study it because
in France it is usually used to assess certain risks such as care related infections or adverse drug reactions.1112Methods
>An adverse event was defined as an unintended injury caused by medical management rather than by a disease
process and which resulted in death, life threatening illness, disability at time of discharge, admission to hospital, or
prolongation of hospital stay.25Preventable adverse events were those that would not have occurred if the patienthadreceived ordinary standards of care appropriate for the time of the study.
Our population sample was inpatients in medical, surgical, and obstetric wards in acute care hospitals in Aquitaine,
southwestern France (3 million inhabitants and 14 000 hospital beds). The sample was obtained by a two stage
cluster stratified process (see figure on bmj.com). For each hospital in each stratum, we selected wards proportional
to the number of hospital beds (proportional allocation).
Independent investigators consecutively applied the three methods to the sample (fig 1). We used two
questionnaires, which were adapted from an English survey.5One was used for detection (by nurses and midwives)
and one for confirmation (by doctors). The questionnaires were used three times for each patient, one for each
method. The detection and confirmation questionnaires used for record review and the questionnaire used for data
collection from clinical teams were similar. Possible adverse events were detected by two nurses in medicine and
http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-7http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-7http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-8http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-8http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-10http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-10http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-10http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-11http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-11http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-12http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-12http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-12http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-2http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-2http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-5http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-5http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-5http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#F1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#F1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#F1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-5http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-5http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-5http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#F1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-5http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-2http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-12http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-11http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-10http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-8http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-7http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-18/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
4/23
surgery and two midwives in obstetrics. One nurse or midwife performed the cross sectional and prospective
methods and the other reviewed the medical records. Three fully qualified doctors in each ward identified cases, one
for each method. Each doctor participated equally in the three methods.
View larger version:
In a new window
Download as PowerPoint SlideFig 1
Method and timing of data collection
Data collection
Cross sectional method
Patients were included on the day that the cross sectional method was performed, when the nurses or midwives
interviewed the head nurse and if necessary consulted the patient's medical records on the basis of 17 criteria (box
1). Patients who screened positive were referred to the physician investigator, who interviewed the doctor (resident or
senior doctor) who managed the patient on the day of data collection, and consulted the patient's medical records if
necessary. That day constituted the first day of the prospective method.
Prospective method
For the prospective method the detection investigators visited the ward on day one of the survey and on two other
occasions during the first seven days, then once a week for up to a month. The doctor involved in the prospective
method visited the ward at the end of the first week then when the last patient was discharged or on day 30 if patients
were still present. Thus patients with adverse events detected on the first day were confirmed by two different doctors
one week apart.
Retrospective method
For the retrospective method, review of the medical records began 30 days after the cross sectional method. The
proportion of cases (incidence rate for retrospective and prospective methods, point prevalence for cross sectional
method) was computed by taking into account the hospital's cluster effect, using the svy program (release 5.0;
STATA).
http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/403542/field_highwire_fragment_image_l/0.jpghttp://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/403542/field_highwire_fragment_image_l/0.jpghttp://www.bmj.com/highwire/powerpoint/403542http://www.bmj.com/highwire/powerpoint/403542http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/403542/field_highwire_fragment_image_l/0/F1.medium.gifhttp://www.bmj.com/highwire/powerpoint/403542http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/403542/field_highwire_fragment_image_l/0.jpg8/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
5/23
Box 1:Criteria used when consulting medical records
Unplanned admission as a result of any healthcare management during the 12 months before index admission
Hospital incurred unintentional patient injury
Adverse drug reaction or drug error
Hospital acquired infection or sepsis
Unplanned removal, injury, or repair of organ or structure during surgery, invasive procedure, or vaginal delivery
Unplanned return or visit to the operating theatre
Unplanned open surgery after closed or laparoscopic surgery
Cardiac or respiratory arrest, low Apgar score
Development of neurological deficit not present on admission
Injury or complications related to termination of labour, and delivery including neonatal complications
Other patient complications including myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis, cerebrovascular accident,
pulmonary embolism Patient or family dissatisfaction with care received documented in the medical record, or documentation of claim
or litigation
Unplanned transfer from general care to intensive care or higher dependency
Unplanned transfer to another acute care hospital
Unexpected death (that is, not an expected outcome of the disease during hospital stay)
Documented pain or psychological or social injury
Any other undesirable outcomes (not covered by any of the other criteria)
Outcome measures and statistical analysisEffectiveness of the methods was determined by the proportion of cases identified in relation to a reference list. This
list was based on the adverse events identified by any one of the three methods. We checked each adverse event
with the ward doctors and with the investigators to resolve any conflicts. We calculated the proportion of preventable
cases (at least one preventable adverse event) detected by each method in relation to the reference method. We
used paired 2tests to compare the effectiveness of the prospective and retrospective methods for identifying cases,preventable cases, and their subgroups (adverse events occurring during hospital stay, those responsible for all or
part of hospital admission, and the most seriousassociated with death or life threatening illness). For these
subgroup analyses, we aggregated data from the medical and surgical wards using an equivalent weight, because in
France the number of beds in these specialties is similar.13
Reliability of the prospective method was assessed from cases detected on the first day of the study and confirmed
twiceby the doctors performing the cross sectional and prospective methods. Acceptability of the workload and face
validity of the results were assessed during sessions with each clinical team after data analysis in the clinical wards.
Questions were open ended and participants could express their perception of the workload and of the truthfulness of
the results of each method.
http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-13http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-13http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-13http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-138/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
6/23
Results
We selected 37 wards in three public and four private hospitals: medical (n = 15), surgical (n = 14), and obstetric (n =
8). Overall, 786 patients were included on the day of the cross sectional method. Eight were excluded because they
were still present on day 30, precluding the review of their medical records. The three methods were therefore
applied to 778 patients: 278 in medicine, 263 in surgery, and 237 in obstetrics. The adverse event rates found by the
prospective and retrospective methods were similar and the point prevalence obtained by the cross sectional method
was about one third lower than that of the other two methods (table). The incidence of preventable adverse events
assessed prospectively was 25% higher than that assessed retrospectively.View this table:
View Popup
View Inline
Proportion of inpatients with at least one adverse event according to epidemiological method (n=778)
Thirteen of the 254 adverse events were excluded from the reference list and considered as false positives (12 of the
adverse events identified by the cross sectional method, none by the prospective method, and one by the
retrospective method). The final list comprised 241 adverse events in 174 patients (110/80 in medicine, 114/80 in
surgery, and 17/14 in obstetrics). Of these 174 patients, 122 (70%) had one adverse event, 38 (22%) had two
adverse events, and 14 (8%) had three adverse events (125 patients had at least one adverse event on the day of
cross sectional data collection). The cross sectional method identified 39 (64%) of the medical cases, 32 (56%) of the
surgical cases, and 5 (45%) of the obstetric cases, and, respectively, 18 (51%), 6 (27%), and 3 (43%) of the
preventable ones (fig 2). None of the most serious adverse events were identified.
http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#T1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#T1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#T1http://www.bmj.com/highwire/markup/403570/expansion?width=1000&height=500&iframe=truehttp://www.bmj.com/highwire/markup/403570/expansion?width=1000&height=500&iframe=truehttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#F2http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#F2http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#F2http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#F2http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/highwire/markup/403570/expansion?width=1000&height=500&iframe=truehttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#T18/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
7/23
View larger version:
In a new window
Download as PowerPoint SlideFig 2
Venn diagrams showing number of cases identified by three methods of data collection. Cases in brackets not
identified by cross sectional method as they were identified after first day of data collection
The prospective method identified 63 (79%) of the medical cases, 49 (61%) of the surgical cases, and 8 (57%) of the
obstetric cases, and, respectively, 32 (74%), 12 (46%), and 4 (44%) of the preventable cases. The retrospective
method identified 43 (54%) of the medical cases, 61 (76%) of the surgical cases, and 8 (57%) of the obstetric cases,
and, respectively, 16 (37%), 12 (46%), and 3 (33%) of the preventable cases. The prospective method was
significantly more effective than the retrospective method at identifying cases in medicine (paired2= 8.64, P < 0.01)and tended to be less effective at identifying cases in surgery (paired
2= 3.24, P < 0.07). The prospective method
was significantly more effective at identifying preventable cases in medicine(paired 2= 3.0, P < 0.005) but nodifference was observed in surgery.In obstetrics, effectiveness was not different but there were too few adverse
events to draw conclusions.
When the medical and surgical cases were aggregated, the prospective and retrospective methods showed similar
effectiveness (70% and 66% of 160 patients identified, respectively), but the prospective method was more effective
http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/403561/field_highwire_fragment_image_l/0.jpghttp://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/403561/field_highwire_fragment_image_l/0.jpghttp://www.bmj.com/highwire/powerpoint/403561http://www.bmj.com/highwire/powerpoint/403561http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/403561/field_highwire_fragment_image_l/0/F2.medium.gifhttp://www.bmj.com/highwire/powerpoint/403561http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/403561/field_highwire_fragment_image_l/0.jpg8/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
8/23
at identifying preventable cases (64% and 40% of 71 patients, respectively; P < 0.02). Effectiveness was similar for
adverse events occurring during hospital stay (68% and 64% of 110 patients), those responsible for hospital
admissions (63% and 59% of 75 patients), and the most serious events (44% and 33% of 52 patients).
Reliability of cases identified among the 145 cases detected on the first day of study was good (global agreement
91.7%; = 0.83,95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.99), but agreement about preventability was low (67.8%; = 0.31,
0.05 to 0.57).
The workload for the prospective and cross sectional methods was perceived as similar,as the phase considered
most time consuming for the staff was detection on the first day of data collection (average three hours in wards with
25 patients). Workload was perceived as less for the retrospective method but not negligible, especially when the
information sources were multiple and the search was performed by the secretarial staff. The hospital staff constantly
preferred the cross sectional and prospective methods because of their pedagogical and communicative virtues.
Discussion
The retrospective method of data collection by review of medical records is as effective as the prospective method
(data gathered during hospital stay) for estimating adverse event rates. Given the presently evolving aims of
epidemiology for adverse events, the prospective method has several advantages over retrospective and cross
sectional (data gathered on a given day) methods. It identified more preventable cases, was more reliable, had better
face validity, and involved an acceptable workload.
Limitations of study
The external validity of perception of workload is questionable because it was assessed in a limited number of care
teams without using a structured interview. The external validity of effectiveness and reliability seems reasonable
because our sample was obtained by random sampling and stratification and because we applied the three methods
to the same sample. Nevertheless, bias may have been present due to the small number of hospitals and wards. In
medicine especially, the preventable cases may have been under-represented because two of the 15 wards
specialised in oncology and accounted for 23 of the 110 (21%) adverse events, of which only five were preventable.
Incidence was not an objective of our study and is subject to biases from inclusion of patients on a given day and
because we did not take into account adverse events between admission to hospital and the first day of data
collection (median four days). The incidence of adverse events found by review of the medical records was, however,
consistent with previous findings.25714Another limitation concerns the reference list. Because there isno gold standardfor the reference list, we checked all cases with the investigators and the clinical teams to resolve conflicts .14The listmay have contained errors because it was established by doctors, and not all the doctors involved in adverse events
participated in this process. However, the validity of thelist would have been questionable if doctors had agreed with
cases identified by the prospective method (because they were involved in their identification) and had invalidated
http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-2http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-2http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-5http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-5http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-7http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-7http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-14http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-14http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-14http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-14http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-14http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-14http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-14http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-7http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-5http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-28/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
9/23
many of the cases identified by the retrospective method; only one case was invalidated. Another drawback to
internal validity was better than usual identification of adverse events by the retrospective method because the care
teams were involved in the identificationof events during the prospective method. This bias in favour of the
retrospective methodwas not likely since the number of cases identified by the retrospective or prospective methods
was similar. All eight patients who were still in the clinical wards at the beginning of the retrospective method (so
medical record review could not be performed) had adverse events according to the prospective method. This may
have resulted in bias in favour of the prospective method.
Box 2: Advantages and disadvantages of three methods used to estimate adverse
eventrates
Prospective method (data collected during hospital stay)
ADVANTAGES
Best effectiveness for identifying preventable events
Good reliability of judgment of iatrogenic nature of events
Staff sufficiently involved to understand notion of iatrogenic risk and search for causes
Preferred because of their pedagogical and communicative virtues
Good appreciation of chain of events and their consequences
Possible role as red flag for care providers during data collection
DISADVANTAGES
Most expensive
Heaviest workload, although perceived as acceptable:
Several visits for investigators
Staff must be available
Cross sectional method (data gathered on given day)
ADVANTAGES
Least expensive
Seamless continuation of former methodological approaches to iatrogenic risk
Methodological approach fully understood by professionals and appreciated because it is rapid and easily
renewed
May be sufficient to justify implementation of a risk reduction policy and to define priorities
Good reliability of judgment of iatrogenic nature of events; possible role as red flag for care providers during
data collection
DISADVANTAGES
Consequences of lack of follow up during patient's hospital stay:
Lowest effectiveness
Lack of validity due to measurement errors (false positives and false negatives)
8/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
10/23
Prevalence biased by underestimation of frequency, particularly of deaths, and by over-representation of short
stays
Believed by unit staff to involve an excessive workload for obtaining imprecise estimations
Inadequate to serve as initial estimation when evaluating impact of risk reduction policy
Retrospective (review of medical records)
ADVANTAGES
Good effectiveness, even superior in surgery for estimating adverse event incidence
Almost no workload for staff
Data collection easily planned
Method sometimes favoured by surgical teams and centres
DISADVANTAGES
Difficulty to judge iatrogenic and preventable nature on basis of sometimes piecemeal data.Therefore:
Measurement errors due to quality of medical records and to lesser reliability of judgment of iatrogenic nature
Underestimation of preventable events
Lower face validity of results, especially for preventability judgment (no involvement of staff)
Strengths of study
One strength of our study was the different results shown according to ward type by stratification. Unlike our results,
another study found that the prospective method detected twice to four times more complication rates in surgical
patients than did a review of medical records.15These results may be due to differences in definitions or in datacollection. The prospective method has proved more effective than the retrospective method for specific risks.1617In contrast to medicine and surgery, data on the incidence of obstetrical adverse events are sparse.18Most studiesfocus on a limited number of events.19The performance of methods and the definition of adverse events that led to ahigh frequency of positive screening and low frequency of identification should be questioned. Adverse events in
obstetrics are, however, of major importance even at low rates, because the patients are generally healthy women.
Large studies are needed to determine whether lowering the level of severity of adverse events or pursuing follow up
systematically after discharge would adequately increase the performance of the epidemiological methods. We did
not include obstetric cases in our aggregated analyses because of their rarity and clinical difference to medical and
surgical ones.
Prevalence surveys are commonly conducted for specific risks.122021Such methods may be more valid for adversedrug reactions that occur before an index admission and that were the reason for admission.10Overall, 11 of the 28nosocomial infections in our study that should have been identified by the cross sectional method were missed. Such
false negatives may be an issue in epidemiological studies that follow trends over time. The cross sectional method
should be used cautiously to assess the incidence of adverse events globally because of the high rate of false
positives and false negatives. Because we expected the cross sectional method to be less effective, we aimed to
http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-15http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-15http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-15http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-16http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-16http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-17http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-17http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-17http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-18http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-18http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-18http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-19http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-19http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-19http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-12http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-12http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-20http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-20http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-21http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-21http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-21http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-10http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-10http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-10http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-10http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-21http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-20http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-12http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-19http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-18http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-17http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-16http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#ref-158/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
11/23
assess the extent of the lack of effectiveness. The cross sectional method is less expensive than the retrospective or
prospective methods, is easier for non-epidemiologists to understand, and allows clinical team to collect data.
Conclusions
Our results provide new insights into the epidemiology of adverse events. Firstly, they suggest ways to improve
prospective assessment. The under identification of cases was mostly due to medical staff inadequately grasping the
concept of adverse events. For example, they did not consider events as adverse if they were frequent or the patient
recovered without sequelae. Under identification could be reduced by providing doctors with detailed information
before data collection and by reviewing medical records before interviewing the doctors. Secondly, our results
suggest that the prospective method is preferable for assessing the impact of risk reduction programmes (better
reliability), for convincing clinical teams that their errors may contribute significantly to adverse events (better face
validity resulting partly from team's involvement in data collection), for improving the assessment of consequences,
and for studying organisational and human mishaps (especially better effectiveness in identifying preventable
adverse events).
What is already known on this topic
Estimates of adverse event rates from large studies are based on review of medical records, despite limitations
The epidemiology of adverse events is moving towards more analytical and evaluative goals for which these
limitations may be serious issues
What this study adds
No reference method exists for identifying adverse events
The retrospective method is appropriate for estimating rates of adverse events
The prospective method, based on data gathered from wards, should be preferred for describing causes and
consequences of adverse events and for evaluating risk reduction programmes
The type of epidemiological method should be chosen according to objectives
Acknowledgments
The sampling strategy is on bmj.com
We thank for their advice Charles Vincent, Maria Woloshynowych, and Graham Neale; Dominique Baubeau, Anne
Broyard-Farge, Chantal Cases, Mireille Elbaum, Brigitte Haury, Jacques Massol, and Florence Veber (Ministry of
Health); Pascal Astagneau, Franoise Haramburu, Lionel Pazart, and Marie-Laure Pibarot (national working group);
the participating hospitals (university hospital of Bordeaux, Libourne and Langon public hospitals, Saint Augustin,
8/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
12/23
Bordeaux Nord, Bordeaux Caudran and Cenon Rive Droite private hospitals); the investigators, Franoise Zaro-
Goni and Xavier Pelloquin (nurses), Delphine Caute and Nathalie Besson (midwives), Danielle Dreyfus, Sandrine
Harston, and Michel Marcos (medicine), Alain Chabrol, Jean Pierre Claverie, and Astrid Sieber-Roth (surgery), and
Jeanine Schirumberro, Philippe Cormier, and Richard Torrieli (obstetrics).
Footnotes
ContributorsPM designed the project, wrote the original research proposal, and managed the project. PM and JLQsupervised the physician investigators and performed data analysis. AMS supervised the nurse and midwife
investigators and was responsible for data quality control. OS did the initial literature analysis and translated the
English review form into our questionnaires. PM and JLQ will act as guarantors for the paper.
FundingFinancial support was provided by the Ministry of Health (Direction de la Recherche, des Etudes, del'Evaluation et des Statistiques).
Conflict of interestNone. Competing interestNone declared. Ethical approvalNot required.
References
1.
1. WeingartSN,2. WilsonRM,3. GibberdRW,4. HarrisonB
.Epidemiology of medical error.BMJ2000;320:7747.FREEFull Text
2.
1. WilsonRM,2. RuncimanWB,3. GibberdRW,4. HarrissonBT,5. NewbyL,6. HamiltonJD
.The quality in Australian Health-Care Study.Med J Aust1995;163:45871.MedlineWeb of Science
3.
1. ThomasEJ,
http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-1-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-1-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=FULL&journalCode=bmj&resid=320/7237/774&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=FULL&journalCode=bmj&resid=320/7237/774&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=FULL&journalCode=bmj&resid=320/7237/774&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=FULL&journalCode=bmj&resid=320/7237/774&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-2-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-2-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7476634&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7476634&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7476634&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7476634&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-2-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=FULL&journalCode=bmj&resid=320/7237/774&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-1-18/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
13/23
2. StuddertDM,3. BurstinHR,4. OravEJ,5. ZeenaT,6. WilliamsEJ,7. et al
.Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado.Med Care2000;38:26171.CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
4.
1. BrennanTA,2. LeapeLL,3. LairdNM,4. HebertL,5. LocalioAR,6. LawthersAG
.Incidence of adverse events and negligence care in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical PracticeStudy I.N Engl J Med1991;324:3706.MedlineWeb of Science
5.
1. VincentC,2. NealeG,3. WoloshynowychM
.Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review.BMJ2001;322:5179.Abstract/FREEFull Text
6.
1. SchiolerT,2. LipczakH,3. PedersenBL,4. MogensenTS,5. BechKB,6. StockmarrA,7. et al
.[Incidence of adverse events in hospitals. A retrospective study of medical records]. UgeskrLaeger2001;163:53708.
http://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00005650-200003000-00003&link_type=DOIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000085644100003&link_type=ISIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000085644100003&link_type=ISIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1987460&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1987460&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-5-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-5-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=322/7285/517&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=322/7285/517&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=322/7285/517&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=322/7285/517&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=322/7285/517&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=322/7285/517&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-5-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1987460&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1987460&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000085644100003&link_type=ISIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00005650-200003000-00003&link_type=DOIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00005650-200003000-00003&link_type=DOI8/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
14/23
Medline
7.
1. DavisP,2. Lay-YeeR,3. SchugS,4. BriantR,5. ScottA,6. JohnsonS,7. et al
.Adverse events regional feasibility study: indicative findings.NZ Med J2001;114:2035.Medline
8.
1. NealeG,
2. WoloshynowychM.Retrospective case record review: a blunt instrument that needs sharpening.Qual Safety Health Care2003;12:23.
9.
1. ThomasEJ,2. StuddertDM,3. BrennanTA
.The reliability of medical record review for estimating adverse event rates.Ann Intern Med2002;136:8126.Abstract/FREEFull Text
10.
1. WeingartSN,2. DavisRB,3. PalmerRH,4. CahalaneM,5. HamelMB,6. MukamalK,7. et al
.Discrepancies between explicit and implicit review: physician and nurse assessments of complications andquality.Health Serv Res2002;37:48398.CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
11.
1. PouyanneP,2. HaramburuF,
http://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11590953&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11590953&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-7-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-7-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11421433&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11421433&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-8-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-8-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=annintmed&resid=136/11/812&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=annintmed&resid=136/11/812&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=annintmed&resid=136/11/812&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=annintmed&resid=136/11/812&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=annintmed&resid=136/11/812&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-10-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-10-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/1475-6773.033&link_type=DOIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000175480800013&link_type=ISIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000175480800013&link_type=ISIhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-11-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-11-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-11-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000175480800013&link_type=ISIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/1475-6773.033&link_type=DOIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/1475-6773.033&link_type=DOIhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-10-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=annintmed&resid=136/11/812&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-8-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11421433&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-7-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11590953&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atom8/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
15/23
3. ImbsJL,4. BgaudB
.Admissions to hospital caused by adverse drug reactions: a cross-sectional incidence study. Frenchpharmacovigilance centres.BMJ2000;320:1036.FREEFull Text
12.
1. The French Prevalence Survey Study Group
.Prevalence of nosocomial infections in France: results of the nationwide survey in 1996.J HospInfect2000;46:18693.CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
13.
1. Directions Rgionales des Affaires Sanitaires et Sociales
.STATISS 2000. Les rgions franaises.
Paris:
Ministre de l'Emploi et de la Solidarit,
2000.
14.
1. BrennanTA,2. LocalioAR,3. LairdNM
.Reliability and validity of judgments concerning adverse events and negligence.Med Care1989;27:114858.MedlineWeb of Science
15.
1. HealeyMA,2. ShackfordSR,3. OslerTM,4. RogersFB,5. BurnsE
.Complications in surgical patients.Arch Surg2002;137:6117.Abstract/FREEFull Text
16.
1. GlenisterHM,2. Taylor
LJ,
3. BartlettCLR,4. CookeEM,5. SedgwickJA,6. MackintoshCA
.An evaluation of surveillance methods for detecting infections in hospitals inpatients.J Hosp Infect1993;23:22942.
http://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=FULL&journalCode=bmj&resid=320/7241/1036&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=FULL&journalCode=bmj&resid=320/7241/1036&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=FULL&journalCode=bmj&resid=320/7241/1036&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=FULL&journalCode=bmj&resid=320/7241/1036&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-12-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-12-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1053/jhin.2000.0833&link_type=DOIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000165641600004&link_type=ISIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000165641600004&link_type=ISIhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-13-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-13-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-14-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-14-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=2593729&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=2593729&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-15-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-15-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=archsurg&resid=137/5/611&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=archsurg&resid=137/5/611&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=archsurg&resid=137/5/611&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=archsurg&resid=137/5/611&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-16-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-16-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-16-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=archsurg&resid=137/5/611&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-15-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=2593729&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=2593729&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-14-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-13-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000165641600004&link_type=ISIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1053/jhin.2000.0833&link_type=DOIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1053/jhin.2000.0833&link_type=DOIhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-12-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=FULL&journalCode=bmj&resid=320/7241/1036&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atom8/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
16/23
CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
17.
1. FlynnEA,2. BarkerKN,3. PepperGA,4. BatesDW,5. MikealRL
.Comparison of methods for detecting medication errors in 36 hospitals and skilled-nursing facilities.Am J Health-Syst Pharm2002;59:43646.Abstract/FREEFull Text
18.
1. MantelGD,2. Biuchmann
E,
3. ReesH,4. PattinsonRC
.Severe acute maternal morbidity: a pilot study of a definition for a near-miss. Br J Obstet Gynaecol1998;105:98590.
MedlineWeb of Science
19.
1. WaterstoneM,2. BewleyS,3. WolfeC
.Incidence and predictors of severe obstetric morbidity: case control study. BMJ2001;322:108993.Abstract/FREEFull Text
20.
1. GrohskopfLA,2. Sinkowitz-CochranRL,3. GarrettDO,4. SohnAH,5. Levine
GL,
6. SiegelJD,7. et al
.A national point-prevalence survey of pediatric intensive care unit-acquired infections in the United States. JPediatr2002;140:4328.CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
21.
http://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0195-6701(93)90028-X&link_type=DOIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1993LA87600007&link_type=ISIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1993LA87600007&link_type=ISIhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-17-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-17-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=ajhp&resid=59/5/436&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=ajhp&resid=59/5/436&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=ajhp&resid=59/5/436&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=ajhp&resid=59/5/436&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-18-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-18-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9763050&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9763050&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-19-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-19-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=322/7294/1089&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=322/7294/1089&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=322/7294/1089&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=322/7294/1089&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=322/7294/1089&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-20-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-20-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1067/mpd.2002.122499&link_type=DOIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000175524400012&link_type=ISIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000175524400012&link_type=ISIhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-21-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-21-1http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-21-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000175524400012&link_type=ISIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1067/mpd.2002.122499&link_type=DOIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1067/mpd.2002.122499&link_type=DOIhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-20-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=322/7294/1089&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-19-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9763050&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9763050&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-18-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=ajhp&resid=59/5/436&atom=%2Fbmj%2F328%2F7433%2F199.atomhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#xref-ref-17-1http://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1993LA87600007&link_type=ISIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0195-6701(93)90028-X&link_type=DOIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0195-6701(93)90028-X&link_type=DOI8/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
17/23
1. EmmersonAM,2. EnstoneJE,3. GriffinM,4. KelseyMC,5. SmythET
.The Second National Prevalence Survey of infection in hospitalsoverview of the results.J HospInfect1996;32:17590.CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
Easy Read
Abridged PDF
Data supplement
Respond to this article
Services
Email to friend
Download to citation manager
Add article to BMJ portfolio
Request permission
Email Alerts
Email me when this article is cited
Email me when responses are posted
Email me when a correction is posted
Citations
Find similar articles in PubMed
Articles by Philippe Michel
Articles by Jean Luc Quenon
Articles by Anne Marie de Sarasqueta
Articles by Olivier Scemama
Citing articles via Web of Science(124) No Citing articles via Scopus
Social bookmarking
LATEST COMMENTS AND MOST COMMENTED
Latest comments
Most commented
http://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0195-6701(96)90144-9&link_type=DOIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996UE49900002&link_type=ISIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996UE49900002&link_type=ISIhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199.pdf%2Bhtmlhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199.pdf%2Bhtmlhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#alternatehttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#alternatehttp://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/322961/field_highwire_article_pdf_abri/0.pdfhttp://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/322961/field_highwire_article_pdf_abri/0.pdfhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=related#datasupphttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=related#datasupphttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=response-formhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=response-formhttp://www.bmj.com/forward?path=node%2F322961http://www.bmj.com/forward?path=node%2F322961http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=citationhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=citationhttp://portfolio.bmj.com/portfolio/add-to-portfolio.html?u=%3C;url%3Ehttp://portfolio.bmj.com/portfolio/add-to-portfolio.html?u=%3C;url%3Ehttps://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=BMJ&publication=bmj&title=Comparison%20of%20three%20methods%20for%20estimating%20rates%20of%20adverse%20events%20and%20rates%20of%20preventable%20adverse%20events%20in%20acute%20care%20hospitals&publicationDate=01%2F22%2F2004&author=Philippe%20Michel%2C%20Jean%20Luc%20Quenon%2C%20Anne%20Marie%20de%20Sarasqueta%2C%20Olivier%20Scemama&contentID=10.1136%2Fbmj.328.7433.199&volumeNum=328&issueNum=&startPage=&endPage=©right=British%20Medical%20Journal%20Publishing%20Group&oa=n&orderBeanReset=1https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=BMJ&publication=bmj&title=Comparison%20of%20three%20methods%20for%20estimating%20rates%20of%20adverse%20events%20and%20rates%20of%20preventable%20adverse%20events%20in%20acute%20care%20hospitals&publicationDate=01%2F22%2F2004&author=Philippe%20Michel%2C%20Jean%20Luc%20Quenon%2C%20Anne%20Marie%20de%20Sarasqueta%2C%20Olivier%20Scemama&contentID=10.1136%2Fbmj.328.7433.199&volumeNum=328&issueNum=&startPage=&endPage=©right=British%20Medical%20Journal%20Publishing%20Group&oa=n&orderBeanReset=1http://www.bmj.com/node/322961/alerts?alerttype=citedbyhttp://www.bmj.com/node/322961/alerts?alerttype=citedbyhttp://www.bmj.com/node/322961/alerts?tab=alerts&alerttype=eletterhttp://www.bmj.com/node/322961/alerts?tab=alerts&alerttype=eletterhttp://www.bmj.com/node/322961/alerts?tab=alerts&alerttype=correctionhttp://www.bmj.com/node/322961/alerts?tab=alerts&alerttype=correctionhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Link&db=pubmed&dbFrom=PubMed&from_uid=14739187http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Link&db=pubmed&dbFrom=PubMed&from_uid=14739187http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&db=pubmed&term=Michel%20Philippe%5Bau%5D&dispmax=50http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&db=pubmed&term=Michel%20Philippe%5Bau%5D&dispmax=50http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&db=pubmed&term=Quenon%20Jean%20Luc%5Bau%5D&dispmax=50http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&db=pubmed&term=Quenon%20Jean%20Luc%5Bau%5D&dispmax=50http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&db=pubmed&term=Sarasqueta%20Anne%20Marie%20de%5Bau%5D&dispmax=50http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&db=pubmed&term=Sarasqueta%20Anne%20Marie%20de%5Bau%5D&dispmax=50http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&db=pubmed&term=Scemama%20Olivier%5Bau%5D&dispmax=50http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&db=pubmed&term=Scemama%20Olivier%5Bau%5D&dispmax=50http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=stanwire&KeyUT=000188652200014&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=269fc60adb004b0b719031a97aedf5e9http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=stanwire&KeyUT=000188652200014&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=269fc60adb004b0b719031a97aedf5e9http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=stanwire&KeyUT=000188652200014&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=269fc60adb004b0b719031a97aedf5e9http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=stanwire&KeyUT=000188652200014&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=269fc60adb004b0b719031a97aedf5e9http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-most-shared-and-searched-tabbed-widget-region-tab-2http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-most-shared-and-searched-tabbed-widget-region-tab-2http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-most-shared-and-searched-tabbed-widget-region-tab-3http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-most-shared-and-searched-tabbed-widget-region-tab-3http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=response-formhttp://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/322961/field_highwire_article_pdf_abri/0.pdfhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199.pdf+htmlhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=response-formhttp://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/322961/field_highwire_article_pdf_abri/0.pdfhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199.pdf+htmlhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=response-formhttp://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/322961/field_highwire_article_pdf_abri/0.pdfhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199.pdf+htmlhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=response-formhttp://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/322961/field_highwire_article_pdf_abri/0.pdfhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199.pdf+htmlhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-most-shared-and-searched-tabbed-widget-region-tab-3http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-most-shared-and-searched-tabbed-widget-region-tab-2http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=stanwire&KeyUT=000188652200014&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=269fc60adb004b0b719031a97aedf5e9http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&db=pubmed&term=Scemama%20Olivier%5Bau%5D&dispmax=50http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&db=pubmed&term=Sarasqueta%20Anne%20Marie%20de%5Bau%5D&dispmax=50http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&db=pubmed&term=Quenon%20Jean%20Luc%5Bau%5D&dispmax=50http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&db=pubmed&term=Michel%20Philippe%5Bau%5D&dispmax=50http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Link&db=pubmed&dbFrom=PubMed&from_uid=14739187http://www.bmj.com/node/322961/alerts?tab=alerts&alerttype=correctionhttp://www.bmj.com/node/322961/alerts?tab=alerts&alerttype=eletterhttp://www.bmj.com/node/322961/alerts?alerttype=citedbyhttps://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=BMJ&publication=bmj&title=Comparison%20of%20three%20methods%20for%20estimating%20rates%20of%20adverse%20events%20and%20rates%20of%20preventable%20adverse%20events%20in%20acute%20care%20hospitals&publicationDate=01%2F22%2F2004&author=Philippe%20Michel%2C%20Jean%20Luc%20Quenon%2C%20Anne%20Marie%20de%20Sarasqueta%2C%20Olivier%20Scemama&contentID=10.1136%2Fbmj.328.7433.199&volumeNum=328&issueNum=&startPage=&endPage=©right=British%20Medical%20Journal%20Publishing%20Group&oa=n&orderBeanReset=1http://portfolio.bmj.com/portfolio/add-to-portfolio.html?u=%3C;url%3Ehttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=citationhttp://www.bmj.com/forward?path=node%2F322961http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=response-formhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199?tab=related#datasupphttp://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/322961/field_highwire_article_pdf_abri/0.pdfhttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#alternatehttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199.pdf%2Bhtmlhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996UE49900002&link_type=ISIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0195-6701(96)90144-9&link_type=DOIhttp://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0195-6701(96)90144-9&link_type=DOI8/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
18/23
Re: PACE trial authors reply to letter by Kindlon
Published13 November 2013Re: Population ageing: the timebomb that isnt?
Published13 November 2013Re: First do no harm revisited
Published13 November 2013Re: Dont restrict funding from drug companies for doctors education
Published13 November 2013more
http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5963/rr/671887http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5963/rr/671887http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6598/rr/671885http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6598/rr/671885http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6426/rr/671883http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6426/rr/671883http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6452/rr/671879http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6452/rr/671879http://www.bmj.com/comment/rapid-responseshttp://www.bmj.com/comment/rapid-responseshttp://myaccount.bmj.com/myaccount/account/hw-registration.htmlhttp://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/1506086873/Position3/default/empty.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/1453080608/Position2/default/empty.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/L19/1736165997/Position1/BMJ/bmjredesign-spotstest-050711/BMJ_app_140x155_01.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://myaccount.bmj.com/myaccount/account/hw-registration.htmlhttp://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/1506086873/Position3/default/empty.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/1453080608/Position2/default/empty.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/L19/1736165997/Position1/BMJ/bmjredesign-spotstest-050711/BMJ_app_140x155_01.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://myaccount.bmj.com/myaccount/account/hw-registration.htmlhttp://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/1506086873/Position3/default/empty.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/1453080608/Position2/default/empty.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/L19/1736165997/Position1/BMJ/bmjredesign-spotstest-050711/BMJ_app_140x155_01.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://myaccount.bmj.com/myaccount/account/hw-registration.htmlhttp://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/1506086873/Position3/default/empty.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/1453080608/Position2/default/empty.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/L19/1736165997/Position1/BMJ/bmjredesign-spotstest-050711/BMJ_app_140x155_01.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6230http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5193http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6361http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5963http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6340http://www.bmj.com/comment/rapid-responseshttp://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6452/rr/671879http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6426/rr/671883http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6598/rr/671885http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5963/rr/6718878/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
19/23
MOST READ AND MOST SHARED IN INDIA
Most read
Most shared
Saturated fat is not the major issue (740 views) Treatment for lymph node tuberculosis(527 views) Interpreting an isolated raised serum alkaline phosphatase level in an asymptomatic patient(398 views)
Fruit consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: results from three prospective longitudinal cohort studies (339 views) Palm oil taxes and cardiovascular disease mortality in India: economic-epidemiologic model(240 views)
http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-most-read-and-commented-india-tabbed-widget-region-tab-2http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-most-read-and-commented-india-tabbed-widget-region-tab-2http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-most-read-and-commented-india-tabbed-widget-region-tab-3http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-most-read-and-commented-india-tabbed-widget-region-tab-3http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6340http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6340http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6340http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c63http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c63http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c63http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f976http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f976http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5001http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5001http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5001http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6048http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6048http://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/L11/1533538811/Right2/BMJ/sky-dtbsky-250811/dtb_all_120x600.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6048http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5001http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f976http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c63http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6340http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-most-read-and-commented-india-tabbed-widget-region-tab-3http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-most-read-and-commented-india-tabbed-widget-region-tab-28/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
20/23
THIS WEEK'S POLL
Is India's soft drinks industry sufficiently regulated?
Yes NoVoteView Results
Readrelated articleSeeprevious polls
LATEST JOBS
International jobs
UK jobs
Falkland Islands Government Medical Officers(7 Nov 2013) Wide choice of GP, Consultant and Registrar positions in Australia, the Perfect Mix of Work and Lifestyle (9 Jan
2013)
Move your career to Australia Earning potential of $350,000+ pa in NSW's spectacular Newcastle region (11 Nov2013)
The Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) is seeking an extraordinary CEO(7 Nov 2013)show me all jobs >>
http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6519http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6519http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/poll-archivehttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/poll-archivehttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-jobs-widget-international-tabbed-widget-region-tab-2http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-jobs-widget-international-tabbed-widget-region-tab-2http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-jobs-widget-international-tabbed-widget-region-tab-3http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-jobs-widget-international-tabbed-widget-region-tab-3http://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/careers/internationaljobs/~3/6ur0oPIIVDg/view-job.html?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/careers/internationaljobs/~3/6ur0oPIIVDg/view-job.html?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/careers/internationaljobs/~3/LCofviadjPs/view-job.html?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/careers/internationaljobs/~3/LCofviadjPs/view-job.html?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/careers/internationaljobs/~3/9pc5yWVPn04/view-job.html?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/careers/internationaljobs/~3/9pc5yWVPn04/view-job.html?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/careers/internationaljobs/~3/nj753jwrvWY/view-job.html?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/careers/internationaljobs/~3/nj753jwrvWY/view-job.html?g=widget_defaulthttp://careers.bmj.com/http://careers.bmj.com/http://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/careers/internationaljobs/~3/nj753jwrvWY/view-job.html?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/careers/internationaljobs/~3/9pc5yWVPn04/view-job.html?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/careers/internationaljobs/~3/LCofviadjPs/view-job.html?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/careers/internationaljobs/~3/6ur0oPIIVDg/view-job.html?g=widget_defaulthttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-jobs-widget-international-tabbed-widget-region-tab-3http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-jobs-widget-international-tabbed-widget-region-tab-2http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/poll-archivehttp://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f65198/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
21/23
LATEST BLOGS AND PODCASTS
Blogs
Podcasts
Katherine Sleeman: Dying people need care, not just care plans(13 Nov 2013) David McCoy: Ecology, politics, economics, and violencethe wider role of health professionals(13 Nov 2013)
Mike Davis: Is a team leader born or made? (12 Nov 2013) Billy Boland: The answer to leadership is greater than 7.3(12 Nov 2013) Suchita Shah: Polio resurgence in Syriathe importance of vaccination in wartime(11 Nov 2013)
more >>
FOLLOW BMJ ON
@bmj_latest
facebook.com
youtube.com
RSS
CONTENT LINKS
Last 7 days
Research
Education
News
Comment
Archive
Blogs
Video
Print Issue
Article clusters
http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-latest-bmj-blogs-and-podcasts-tabbed-widget-region-tab-2http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-latest-bmj-blogs-and-podcasts-tabbed-widget-region-tab-2http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-latest-bmj-blogs-and-podcasts-tabbed-widget-region-tab-3http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-latest-bmj-blogs-and-podcasts-tabbed-widget-region-tab-3http://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/blogs/~3/5vqD4HNs9hw/?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/blogs/~3/5vqD4HNs9hw/?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/blogs/~3/XI9UN2RB6Y4/?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/blogs/~3/XI9UN2RB6Y4/?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/blogs/~3/XI9UN2RB6Y4/?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/blogs/~3/XI9UN2RB6Y4/?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/blogs/~3/vzfL5Ga2xJA/?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/blogs/~3/vzfL5Ga2xJA/?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/blogs/~3/VW93pNpNSEg/?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/blogs/~3/VW93pNpNSEg/?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/blogs/~3/14OwjMe4fMM/?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/blogs/~3/14OwjMe4fMM/?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/blogs/~3/14OwjMe4fMM/?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/blogs/~3/14OwjMe4fMM/?g=widget_defaulthttp://www.bmj.com/blogshttp://www.bmj.com/blogshttp://twitter.com/bmj_latesthttp://twitter.com/bmj_latesthttp://facebook.com/bmjdotcomhttp://facebook.com/bmjdotcomhttp://youtube.com/user/BMJmediahttp://youtube.com/user/BMJmediahttp://pinterest.com/thebmj/http://pinterest.com/thebmj/http://www.bmj.com/rsshttp://www.bmj.com/rsshttp://www.bmj.com/archive/sevendayshttp://www.bmj.com/archive/sevendayshttp://www.bmj.com/us/researchhttp://www.bmj.com/us/researchhttp://www.bmj.com/us/educationhttp://www.bmj.com/us/educationhttp://www.bmj.com/us/newshttp://www.bmj.com/us/newshttp://www.bmj.com/us/commenthttp://www.bmj.com/us/commenthttp://www.bmj.com/archivehttp://www.bmj.com/archivehttp://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/http://www.bmj.com/multimediahttp://www.bmj.com/multimediahttp://www.bmj.com/content/currenthttp://www.bmj.com/content/currenthttp://www.bmj.com/article-clustershttp://www.bmj.com/article-clustershttp://www.bmj.com/rsshttp://pinterest.com/thebmj/http://youtube.com/user/BMJmediahttp://facebook.com/bmjdotcomhttp://twitter.com/bmj_latesthttp://www.bmj.com/rsshttp://pinterest.com/thebmj/http://youtube.com/user/BMJmediahttp://facebook.com/bmjdotcomhttp://twitter.com/bmj_latesthttp://www.bmj.com/rsshttp://pinterest.com/thebmj/http://youtube.com/user/BMJmediahttp://facebook.com/bmjdotcomhttp://twitter.com/bmj_latesthttp://www.bmj.com/rsshttp://pinterest.com/thebmj/http://youtube.com/user/BMJmediahttp://facebook.com/bmjdotcomhttp://twitter.com/bmj_latesthttp://www.bmj.com/rsshttp://pinterest.com/thebmj/http://youtube.com/user/BMJmediahttp://facebook.com/bmjdotcomhttp://twitter.com/bmj_latesthttp://www.bmj.com/article-clustershttp://www.bmj.com/content/currenthttp://www.bmj.com/multimediahttp://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/http://www.bmj.com/archivehttp://www.bmj.com/us/commenthttp://www.bmj.com/us/newshttp://www.bmj.com/us/educationhttp://www.bmj.com/us/researchhttp://www.bmj.com/archive/sevendayshttp://www.bmj.com/rsshttp://pinterest.com/thebmj/http://youtube.com/user/BMJmediahttp://facebook.com/bmjdotcomhttp://twitter.com/bmj_latesthttp://www.bmj.com/blogshttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/blogs/~3/14OwjMe4fMM/?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/blogs/~3/VW93pNpNSEg/?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/blogs/~3/vzfL5Ga2xJA/?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/blogs/~3/XI9UN2RB6Y4/?g=widget_defaulthttp://feeds.bmj.com/~r/bmj/blogs/~3/5vqD4HNs9hw/?g=widget_defaulthttp://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-latest-bmj-blogs-and-podcasts-tabbed-widget-region-tab-3http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199#mini-panel-latest-bmj-blogs-and-podcasts-tabbed-widget-region-tab-28/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
22/23
MY ACCOUNT
Email alerts
Activate subscription
RESOURCES
Authors
Reviewers
BMA members
Readers
Subscribers
Advertisers and sponsors
Media
INFORMATION
Contact us
Feedback
BMJ
About us
Editorial staff
BMJ in the USA
BMJ in India
Advisers
Policies
Complaints
Partnerships
Submit your paper
EXPLORE BMJ
BMJ Group
Student BMJ
doc2doc
Open data campaign
Tamiflu campaign
Too much medicine campaign
http://myaccount.bmj.com/myaccount/account/hw-registration.htmlhttp://myaccount.bmj.com/myaccount/account/hw-registration.htmlhttp://journals.bmj.com/cgi/activatehttp://journals.bmj.com/cgi/activatehttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authorshttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authorshttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewershttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewershttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-bma-membershttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-bma-membershttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-readershttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-readershttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-subscribershttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-subscribershttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-advertisers-and-sponsorshttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-advertisers-and-sponsorshttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-mediahttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-mediahttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/contact-ushttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/contact-ushttp://www.bmj.com/feedbackhttp://www.bmj.com/feedbackhttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmjhttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmjhttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/editorial-staffhttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/editorial-staffhttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/editorial-staff/bmj-united-stateshttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/editorial-staff/bmj-united-stateshttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/editorial-staff/bmj-indiahttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/editorial-staff/bmj-indiahttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/advisory-panelshttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/advisory-panelshttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/forms-policies-and-checklistshttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/forms-policies-and-checklistshttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/complaints-procedurehttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/complaints-procedurehttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/media-partnershipshttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/media-partnershipshttp://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmjhttp://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmjhttp://group.bmj.com/http://group.bmj.com/http://student.bmj.com/http://student.bmj.com/http://doc2doc.bmj.com/http://doc2doc.bmj.com/http://www.bmj.com/open-datahttp://www.bmj.com/open-datahttp://www.bmj.com/tamifluhttp://www.bmj.com/tamifluhttp://www.bmj.com/too-much-medicinehttp://www.bmj.com/too-much-medicinehttp://www.bmj.com/too-much-medicinehttp://www.bmj.com/tamifluhttp://www.bmj.com/open-datahttp://doc2doc.bmj.com/http://student.bmj.com/http://group.bmj.com/http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmjhttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/media-partnershipshttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/complaints-procedurehttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/forms-policies-and-checklistshttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/advisory-panelshttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/editorial-staff/bmj-indiahttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/editorial-staff/bmj-united-stateshttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/editorial-staffhttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmjhttp://www.bmj.com/feedbackhttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/contact-ushttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-mediahttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-advertisers-and-sponsorshttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-subscribershttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-readershttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-bma-membershttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewershttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authorshttp://journals.bmj.com/cgi/activatehttp://myaccount.bmj.com/myaccount/account/hw-registration.html8/13/2019 Search BMJ Group
23/23
BMJ Group
Privacy and Cookie Policy
Website T & Cs
Revenue Sources
HighWire Press
Feedback
Help 2013 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
http://group.bmj.com/http://group.bmj.com/http://group.bmj.com/group/about/legal/privacyhttp://group.bmj.com/group/about/legal/privacyhttp://group.bmj.com/group/about/legal/terms/http://group.bmj.com/group/about/legal/terms/http://group.bmj.com/group/about/revenue-sourceshttp://group.bmj.com/group/about/revenue-sourceshttp://highwire.stanford.edu/http://highwire.stanford.edu/http://www.bmj.com/feedbackhttp://www.bmj.com/feedbackhttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/bmjcom-redesign-frequently-asked-questionshttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/bmjcom-redesign-frequently-asked-questionshttp://oas.services.bmj.com/5c/www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/199/L11/1608574871/Right1/BMJ/sky-skydtbIndia-250811/dtb_all_120x600.gif/5032754d44564b455177454143745637?xhttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/bmjcom-redesign-frequently-asked-questionshttp://www.bmj.com/feedbackhttp://highwire.stanford.edu/http://group.bmj.com/group/about/revenue-sourceshttp://group.bmj.com/group/about/legal/terms/http://group.bmj.com/group/about/legal/privacyhttp://group.bmj.com/Top Related