Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10024260›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1999

Randomised controlled trial of effect of feedback on general practitioners' prescribing in Australia.

D L O'Connell, D Henry, R Tomlins

Abstract readClinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Audit and Feedback Interventions for Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

D L O'ConnellDiscipline of Clinical Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. doconnel@mail.newcastle.edu.au
D Henry
R Tomlins

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the effect on general practitioners' prescribing of feedback on their levels of prescribing.

designRandomised controlled trial.

settingGeneral practice in rural Australia.

participants2440 full time recognised general practitioners practising in non-urban areas.

interventionTwo sets of graphical displays (6 months apart) of their prescribing rates for 2 years, relative to those of their peers, were posted to participants. Data were provided for five main drug groups and were accompanied by educational newsletters. The control group received no information on their prescribing.

main outcome measuresPrescribing rates in the intervention and control groups for the five main drug groups, total prescribing and potential substitute prescribing and ordering before and after the interventions.

resultsThe intervention and control groups had similar baseline characteristics (age, sex, patient mix, practices). Median prescribing rates for the two groups were almost identical before and after the interventions. Any changes in prescribing observed in the intervention group were also seen in the control group. There was no evidence that feedback reduced the variability in prescribing nor did it differentially affect the very high or very low prescribers.

conclusionsThe form of feedback evaluated here-mailed, unsolicited, centralised, government sponsored, and based on aggregate data-had no impact on the prescribing levels of general practitioners.

Indexed as

FeedbackAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaDrug PrescriptionsFamily PracticeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Physicians'Rural Health Services

Identifiers

PMID10024260
PMCPMC27749

What OpenQuestion holds

Texttitle and abstract
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.