Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine1999
Using feedback letters to influence the use of antiulcer agents in a Medicaid program.
Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Inappropriate drug use and risk of transition to nursing homes among community-dwelling older adults.Medical care · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the impact of printed patient-specific feedback regarding potential misprescribing of antiulcer agents (AUAs). Measures of impact included improvements in patients' dispensing profiles, assessed according to predetermined criteria, and decreases in cost and quantity of AUAs dispensed.
designControlled study. After evaluation for compliance with predetermined criteria, prescribers identified as having one or two patient profiles with potential errors were assigned alternatively to control or experimental groups. An intervention was mailed to the experimental group.
settingOutpatient setting in the New Mexico Medicaid population.
participantsPatients and prescribers identified as having potential misprescribing of AUAs.
interventionThe intervention consisted of a cover letter describing the purpose of the drug utilization review program, an educational fact sheet regarding prescribing AUAs, patient profiles with potential misprescribing, and physician response forms. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsThere were greater improvements in dispensing to patients in the intervention group (chi2, p <.001). Significant odds ratios for the intervention group were 2.29 for AUAs discontinued, 1.98 for all improvements combined, 13.13 for improvement in listing of proper diagnosis for AUAs, and 2.84 for appropriate indication when prescribing the higher acute daily dosage. Using data from 3 months before and after the intervention, we found greater decreases in mean monthly costs (p =.044) and mean monthly quantity of AUAs dispensed (p =.049) in the intervention group.
conclusionsThis intervention significantly decreased AUA dispensing to patients whose prescribers were mailed the patient-specific feedback intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.