Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11895824›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2002

After Bristol: putting patients at the centre.

Angela Coulter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Vagueness and variety in person-centred care.Wellcome open research · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Measure of the Family Caregivers' Experience.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Barriers for an effective communication around clinical decision making: an analysis of the gaps between doctors' and patients' point of view.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2014
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Is advice incompatible with autonomous informed choice? Women's perceptions of advice in the context of antenatal screening: a qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2014
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Trust but verify: the interactive effects of trust and autonomy preferences on health outcomes.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2009
    Article
  18. Advocating mandatory patient 'autonomy' in healthcare: adverse reactions and side effects.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2008
    Article
  19. Optimizing medicines management: From compliance to concordance.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2007
    Article
  20. Do people want to be autonomous patients? Preferred roles in treatment decision-making in several patient populations.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2007
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Angela CoulterPicker Institute Europe, Oxford OX1 1RX. angela.coulter@pickereurope.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationEnglandFemaleHumansInfantInformed ConsentMaleMalpracticeMedical ErrorsPatient-Centered CarePediatricsPhysician-Patient RelationsQuality of Health CareSelf CareThoracic Surgical Procedures

Identifiers

PMID11895824
PMCPMC84404

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.