ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology1999
Evidence based general practice.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence-based general practice: a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- How much of general practice is based on evidence?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004Article
- "The cawing of the crow...Cassandra-like, prognosticating woe".The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004Article
- Clinical decision support systems for the practice of evidence-based medicine.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo estimate the proportion of interventions in general practice that are based on evidence.
designA one-year cross-sectional study involving all consultations by patients over age 15 years seen in 34 national primary health care centers.
settingThe rural Castellon provincial district within the Valencian Community in eastern Spain, with a total population of 21,155 inhabitants. SUBJECTS: of 1990 case histories registered in the course of one year, 4800 consultations were identified; of these, 2341 (49%) distinct diagnosis-intervention pairs were identified and coded. MAIN
resultsThe evidence basis for the diagnosis-intervention pairs in the study was derived from a computerized search of the scientific literature published in 1992-1996. The quality of the evidence was classified according to the method of Ellis et al. Within the 2341 diagnosis-intervention pairs, there was positive evidence in support of the intervention used in 55%. The evidence basis was sound for 42%, with 38% being based on Type I (clinical trials) evidence and 4% on Type II evidence. The most frequently presenting diseases involved the circulatory (18.7%), respiratory (14.9%), nervous (14.2%), musculo-skeletal (12.5%) and nutrition and metabolism and digestive systems, with 12.1% each.
conclusionsClinical practice was clearly supported by positive evidence of all Types (I-III) in a total of 55% of interventions, and by good positive evidence of Type I or II in 42% of interventions. The percentage of evidence-based interventions in general practice serving a substantial population in rural Spain was lower than had been reported by some authors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10608361What 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.