Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10198512›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1998

Reducing antibiotics for respiratory tract symptoms in primary care: consolidating 'why' and considering 'how'.

C C Butler, S Rollnick, P Kinnersley, A Jones, N Stott

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

C C ButlerUniversity of Wales College of Medicine, Llanedeyrn Health Centre, Cardiff. butlercc@cf.ac.uk
S Rollnick
P Kinnersley
A Jones
N Stott

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We summarize recently published evidence showing that antibiotic treatment offers little or no benefit to most patients presenting with sore throats, acute otitis media, maxillary sinusitis, and acute bronchitis. Despite this research, the prescription of antibiotics for respiratory tract conditions is rising in Britain. This wastes money, encourages people to consult for self-limiting conditions, and causes bacteria to become resistant to antimicrobials. Ways of changing present practice are underresearched. Enhanced consulting skills, guidelines and monitoring strategies, patient education, and anti-inflammatory drugs for recurrent and chronic sufferers all hold promise.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsChildClinical CompetenceDecision MakingDrug Resistance, MicrobialHumansPatient Education as TopicPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecurrenceReferral and ConsultationRespiratory Tract InfectionsRisk AssessmentAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID10198512
PMCPMC1313298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.