Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11559645›Full record

Trial reportGut2001

Reducing community dyspepsia drug costs: a controlled trial.

R M Valori, C M Brown, P Strangeways, M Bradburn

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical TrialControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Gut, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

R M ValoriGloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucestershire, UK.
C M Brown
P Strangeways
M Bradburn
Gloucestershire Royal Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDyspepsia drug costs account for nearly 0.5% of the National Health Service budget. We hypothesised that improved management of dyspepsia would lead to reduced drug costs.

aimTo determine whether a multifaceted educational strategy for general practitioners aimed at improving quality of dyspepsia management can control dyspepsia costs without increasing demand for endoscopy.

methodsA multifaceted educational intervention was delivered to general practitioners in West Gloucestershire but not to those in the east of the county. Dyspepsia drug costs, the primary outcome measure, were obtained from the Prescription Pricing Authority and compared between the two sides of the county. Referral rates for endoscopy, admission to the gastrointestinal bleed unit, and delayed diagnosis of gastric cancer were secondary measures recorded in West Gloucestershire only.

resultsFollowing the intervention, drug costs declined and then stabilised in West Gloucestershire. Drug costs peaked in the control group 15 months after those in the intervention group. Using an autoregressive integrated moving average model it was estimated the overall costs in the intervention group reduced by 57.9 pence per head of population per half year (95% confidence interval 45.8-69.9 pence/half year; p<0.0001) in comparison with the control group. This difference was maintained for three consecutive years resulting in a cumulative saving of pound1.13 million. Referral rates for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy remained stable during the study period.

conclusionA multifaceted educational intervention for general practitioners designed to improve the quality of care of patients with dyspepsia is an effective means of controlling dyspepsia drug costs without increasing demand for endoscopy.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCost SavingsDrug CostsDrug UtilizationDyspepsiaEnglandFamily PracticeGastroscopyHumansLeast-Squares AnalysisMiddle AgedPeptic UlcerPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Referral and Consultation

Identifiers

PMID11559645
PMCPMC1728459
OpenAlexW2075736062

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.