ArticleAtencion primaria2002
[Evaluation of the proper use of medicines in primary care. How can this be improved?].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Therapeutic traditions, patient socioeconomic characteristics and physicians' early new drug prescribing--a multilevel analysis of rosuvastatin prescription in south Sweden.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2009Article
- Understanding the effects of a decentralized budget on physicians' compliance with guidelines for statin prescription--a multilevel methodological approach.BMC health services research · 2007Article
- Understanding adherence to official guidelines on statin prescribing in primary health care--a multi-level methodological approach.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2005Article
- [A research project that was unnecessarily exclusive in practice: restriction on participation depending on computer back-up].Atencion primaria · 2003Article
- [Appropriate use of benzodiazepines zolpidem and zopiclone in diseases attended in primary care].Atencion primariaArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe process of medicating a patient embraces the identification of the health problem, the doctor's prescription to treat this indication, the dispensing of the medicine and its consumption. The studies of use of medicine analyse this process in order to detect those factors that impinge on the correct use of medicines.
objectiveTo evaluate the quality of the prescription of certain primary care medicines as a function of the indication for which they were prescribed, detecting those features of the patients, prescribing doctors, primary care centre and health district that affect their inappropriate use.
methodPrescription-indication study based on the calculation of multiple-level models with individualised data bases for the prescriptions. These include characteristics of the prescriptions, patients, doctors, health centres and the health district involved. These models are a step forward in this kind of study, in that they enable analysis of the information from different levels at the same time as calculation of the respective degrees of responsibility for inadequacies of prescription. DISCUSSION: Apart from its methodological originality, which may serve for subsequent studies, the main interest of this study lies in the pioneering nature of its massive use of population micro-data to evaluate prescription quality. These data are taken from the computerised clinical records in primary care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.