ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2003
Is the NHS getting better or worse?
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cross-sectional analysis of a collaborative Web-based database for lupus erythematosus-associated skin lesions: prospective enrollment of 114 patients.Archives of dermatology · 2009Article
- The quest for quality in the NHS: still searching?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Article
- Creative use of existing clinical and health outcomes data to assess NHS performance in England: part 2--more challenging aspects of monitoring.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Article
- Creative use of existing clinical and health outcomes data to assess NHS performance in England: Part 1--performance indicators closely linked to clinical care.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Article
- Building a framework for trust: critical event analysis of deaths in surgical care.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Review
- Rising to the challenge: will the NHS support people with long term conditions?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Review
- Cross sectional survey of multicentre clinical databases in the United Kingdom.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004Article
- Is the NHS getting better or worse? Role of information in assessing quality is undervalued.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004Article
- Is the NHS getting better or worse? We need to ask the right questions.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004Article
- Is the NHS getting better or worse? Just who gets to choose which data will matter?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004Article
- Is the NHS getting better or worse? Making use of information is the key.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004Article
- Is the NHS getting better or worse? Better to be vaguely right than precisely wrong.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.