Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11157532›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2001

A descriptive feast but an evaluative famine: systematic review of published articles on primary care computing during 1980-97.

E Mitchell, F Sullivan

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

80 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Impact of an electronic link between the emergency department and family physicians: a randomized controlled trial.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2006
    Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Improving management of hypertension in general practice: a randomised controlled trial of feedback derived from electronic patient data.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2005
    Trial
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. The role of organization of care in GPs' prevention practice.Primary health care research & development · 2021
    Article
  20. Review

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

E MitchellDepartment of General Practice, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 0RR. edmla@clinmed.gla.ac.uk
F Sullivan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo appraise findings from studies examining the impact of computers on primary care consultations.

designSystematic review of world literature from 1980 to 1997. DATA SOURCES: 5475 references were identified from electronic databases (Medline, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Index of Scientific and Technical Proceedings, Embase, OCLC FirstSearch Proceedings), bibliographies, books, identified articles, and by authors active in the field. 1892 eligible abstracts were independently rated, and 89 studies met the inclusion criteria.

main outcome measuresEffect on doctors' performance and patient outcomes; attitudes towards computerisation.

results61 studies examined effects of computers on practitioners' performance, 17 evaluated their impact on patient outcome, and 20 studied practitioners' or patients' attitudes. Computer use during consultations lengthened the consultation. Reminder systems for preventive tasks and disease management improved process rates, although some returned to pre-intervention levels when reminders were stopped. Use of computers for issuing prescriptions increased prescribing of generic drugs, and use of computers for test ordering led to cost savings and fewer unnecessary tests. There were no negative effects on those patient outcomes evaluated. Doctors and patients were generally positive about use of computers, but issues of concern included their impact on privacy, the doctor-patient relationship, cost, time, and training needs.

conclusionsPrimary care computing systems can improve practitioner performance, particularly for health promotion interventions. This may be at the expense of patient initiated activities, making many practitioners suspicious of the negative impact on relationships with patients. There remains a dearth of evidence evaluating effects on patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Computer SystemsQuality Assurance, Health CareBibliometricsConfidentialityDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedDrug Therapy, Computer-AssistedElectronic Data ProcessingHealth PromotionHumansMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedPatient SatisfactionPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID11157532
PMCPMC26582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.