The primary care stroke gap.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

1. The integrated care pathway for post stroke patients (iCaPPS): a shared care approach between stakeholders in areas with limited access to specialist stroke care services.BMC health services research · 2017
   Trial
2. Identifying unmet needs in long-term stroke care using in-depth assessment and the Post-Stroke Checklist - The Managing Aftercare for Stroke (MAS-I) study.European stroke journal · 2018
   Article
3. Perceptions of the role of general practice and practical support measures for carers of stroke survivors: a qualitative study.BMC family practice · 2011
   Article
4. Feasibility study of a primary care-based model for stroke aftercare.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2006
   Article
5. Developing a primary care-based stroke model: the prevalence of longer-term problems experienced by patients and carers.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2003
   Review
6. Developing a primary care-based stroke service: a review of the qualitative literature.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2003
   Review

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as