Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15186570›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2004

Rheumatology and musculoskeletal medicine.

Graham Davenport, Primary Care Rheumatology Society Steering Committee

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Graham DavenportThe Surgery, The Green, Wrenbury, Nantwich, Cheshire. graham@wrenburygp.freeserve.co.uk
Primary Care Rheumatology Society Steering Committee
Rheumatology Consultants · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Musculoskeletal disease accounts for a large proportion of a general practitioner's (GP's) workload. Proper management can not only improve quality of care, but also increase job satisfaction and reap rewards under the new contract. Osteoporosis creates a huge socioeconomic burden of disease and disability. Identifying high-risk groups in primary care and using preventative treatment can result in a substantial reduction in morbidity and mortality. GPs can help by presenting a unified lifestyle message, advising on fall prevention, and providing effective treatment; in particular, calcium and vitamin D for female nursing home residents. Osteoarthritis is eminently treatable in primary care with a number of management options for GPs, in addition to drug therapy. Glucosamine and chondroitin have few side effects and are worth recommending to patients with mild knee osteoarthritis. Rheumatoid arthritis can cause significant disability, which can be limited by early diagnosis, referral, and treatment. Severe refractory rheumatoid arthritis may warrant referral for consideration of biologic therapy. Assessment of the cardiovascular risk and possible use of statins in rheumatoid patients may reduce their cardiovascular mortality. GPs should aim to help patients to achieve optimum quality of life by using a holistic approach and by allowing maximum choice and control over their disease.

Indexed as

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalArthritis, RheumatoidExercise TherapyHumansMusculoskeletal DiseasesOsteoarthritisOsteoporosisRheumatologyAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal

Identifiers

PMID15186570
PMCPMC1266208
OpenAlexW2109407355

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.