ArticleAtencion primaria2000
[Impact of a pharmacotherapy bulletin at a primary health care area].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 evaluate the impact of the recommendations in the bulletin of pharmacotherapeutic information on the prescription of iron salts by the area's doctors.
designIntervention study with control group.
settingTwo primary care areas in Asturias.
participantsIntervention group: 93 doctors from area 3. CONTROL GROUP: 59 doctors from area 7.
interventionsIn March 97 an informative bulletin was issued recommending the use of ferrous salts rather than ferric salts and was sent to all area 3's doctors. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsThe PFe2 indicator was calculated: defined daily dose percentage of ferrous salts out of total iron salts in three time periods: January-March '97 (t1), April-June '97 (t2) and January-March '98 (t3). In the intervention group, the PFe2 value increased progressively in the three periods. There were significant differences between t1 and t3 (mean increase: 6.0%, 95% CI: 1.9%-10.1%, p = 0.004) and between t2 and t3 (mean increase: 4.5%, 95% CI 0.8%-8.3%, p = 0.017), whereas the differences were not significant between t1 and t2 (mean increase 1.5%, 95 CI 1.3%-4.2%, p = 0.296). The respective values for the controls only showed significant differences for variation in periods t2 and t3 (mean increase: 2.0%, 95% CI 0.2%-3.8%, p = 0.017).
conclusions1. The bulletin issued in the area had a favourable impact. 2. This impact could only be seen in the medium term, not in the short term.
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.