Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10688560›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2000

Open access follow up for inflammatory bowel disease: pragmatic randomised trial and cost effectiveness study.

J G Williams, W Y Cheung, I T Russell, D R Cohen, M Longo, B Lervy

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readClinical TrialMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02985476 (Electronic Linkage for Inflammatory Bowel Disease to Deliver Joint Access to Health Reports), which is not on this map. Cited by 27 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
12.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

NCT02985476 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2010, after this paper: background citation

Electronic Linkage for Inflammatory Bowel Disease to Deliver Joint Access to Health Reports

TypeinterventionalSponsorPhedra DoddsRan2010 to 2011Enrolled61ConditionsInflammatory Bowel DiseasesArmsHealth reports
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Psychological interventions for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Models of outpatient care delivery in inflammatory bowel disease: a scoping review.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Inflammatory bowel disease: an expanding global health problem.Clinical medicine insights. Gastroenterology · 2013
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J G WilliamsSchool of Postgraduate Studies in Medical and Health Care, Morriston Hospital, Swansea SA6 6NL. john.williams@pgms.wales.nhs.uk
W Y Cheung
I T Russell
D R Cohen
M Longo
B Lervy
Morriston Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate whether follow up of patients with inflammatory bowel disease is better through open access than by routine booked appointments.

designPragmatic randomised controlled trial.

settingTwo district general hospitals in Swansea and Neath, Wales.

participants180 adults (78 with Crohn's disease, 77 ulcerative or indeterminate colitis, 25 ulcerative or idiopathic proctitis) recruited from outpatient clinics during October 1995 to November 1996.

interventionOpen access follow up according to patient need.

main outcome measuresGeneric (SF-36) and disease specific (UK inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire UKIBDQ) quality of life, number of primary and secondary care contacts, total resource use, and views of patients and general practitioners.

resultsThere were no differences in generic or disease specific quality of life. Open access patients had fewer day visits (0.21 v 0. 42, P<0.05) and fewer outpatient visits ( 4.12 v 4.64, P<0.01), but some patients had difficulty obtaining an urgent appointment. There were no significant differences in specific investigations undertaken, inpatient days, general practitioner surgery or home visits, drugs prescribed, or total patient borne costs. Mean total cost in secondary care was lower for open access patients (P<0.05), but when primary care and patient borne costs were added there were no significant differences in total costs to the NHS or to society. General practitioners and patients preferred open access.

conclusionsOpen access follow up delivers the same quality of care as routine outpatient care and is preferred by patients and general practitioners. It uses fewer resources in secondary care but total resource use is similar. Better methods of ensuring urgent access to outpatient clinics are needed.

Indexed as

AdultAmbulatory CareAttitude of Health PersonnelCost-Benefit AnalysisFollow-Up StudiesHealth ResourcesHealth Services AccessibilityHospitals, DistrictHumansInflammatory Bowel DiseasesPatient SatisfactionPractice Guidelines as TopicQuality of LifeUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID10688560
PMCPMC27297
OpenAlexW2104396614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.