Differentiating between audit and research. Undue protection of patient confidentiality jeopardises both research and audit.

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.

1. Audit on knowledge, attitudes and practices on developmental assessment among public health midwives in a sub-urban health area in Sri Lanka.BMC public health · 2026
   Article
2. Research ethics committees in the UK--the pressure is now on research and development departments.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2005
   Review
3. Using patient-identifiable data for observational research and audit.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2000
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Differentiating between audit and research: postal survey of health authorities' views.1999

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as