ReviewThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2002
Randomised controlled trials in primary care: scope and application.
Review in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- House dust mite avoidance measures for perennial allergic rhinitis: a systematic review of efficacy.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2003Pooled it
- Design, analysis and presentation of factorial randomised controlled trials.BMC medical research methodology · 2003Trial
- Letter to the editor: Computed tomography Hounsfield unit values as a treatment response indicator for spinal metastatic lesions in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective study in Japan.Asian spine journal · 2025Article
- Article
- General practitioner practice-based pharmacist input to medicines optimisation in the UK: pragmatic, multicenter, randomised, controlled trial.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2021Article
- Drawing on human factors engineering to evaluate the effectiveness of health information technology.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2017Article
- The effectiveness of health care provider physical activity recommendations in cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
- A Systematic Review Protocol to Assess the Effects of Physical Activity on Health and Quality of Life Outcomes in Adolescent Cancer Survivors.JMIR research protocols · 2016Article
- Improving Decision Making about Genetic Testing in the Clinic: An Overview of Effective Knowledge Translation Interventions.PloS one · 2016Review
- Study designs and statistical methods in the Journal of Family and Community Medicine: 1994-2010.Journal of family & community medicine · 2013Article
- Analysing the benefits of laparoscopic hernia repair compared to open repair: A meta-analysis of observational studies.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2012Article
- The case study approach.BMC medical research methodology · 2011Review
- Comparison of reports of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in surgical journals: literature review.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2006Review
- A survey of statistics in three UK general practice journal.BMC medical research methodology · 2004Article
- Why research in family medicine? A superfluous question.Annals of family medicine · 2004Review
- Worldwide contribution of Indian authors in various anesthesia-related journals.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is now widespread acknowledgement of the absence of a sound evidence base underpinning many of the decisions made in primary care. Randomised controlled trials represent the methodology of choicefor determining efficacy and effectiveness of interventions, yet researchers working in primary care have been reluctant to use intervention studies, favouring observational study designs. Unfamiliarity with the different trial designs now available, and the relative advantages and disadvantages conferred by each, may be one factor contributing to this paradox. In this paper, we consider the principal trial designs available to primary care researchers, discussing the contexts in which a particular design may prove most useful. This information will, we hope, also prove useful to primary care clinicians attempting to interpret trial findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12236280PMC1314417What 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.