Trial reportAtencion primaria2004
[Classification of medication interactions in family medicine and effectiveness of an intervention to improve them].
Trial report in Atencion primaria, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivea) To build a detection and evaluation tool of drug interactions (DI) in family practice prescribing; b) to elaborate and to offer a DI report, including appearance mechanism, clinical consequences and appropriate alternatives; c) to evaluate their effectiveness to diminish the DI incidence, and d) to check effectiveness of different diffusion methods.
designPrevious phase: we will build the tool and will elaborate the report. Intervention phase: longitudinal, interventional, multicenter.
settingPrimary care, Murcia Region.
participantsFamily doctors (FD) with computerized clinical history frequently used to prescribe, with indefinite contract and who don't reject to participate.
interventionsRandomly we will form 4 FD groups to carry out monthly (6 months): a) Minimal intervention: we mail DI reports; b) generic intervention: DI report is delivered in collective session managed by a trained doctor; c) personalized intervention: discussion peer-to-peer between FD and the trained doctor; d) control group: they won't receive DI information. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: We will measure the evolution of DI incidence and their classification according to relevance and repercussions. Different aspects related with FD and patient characteristics and with organizational environment are measured for subject's describing, inclusion-exclusion criteria assurance and conditioning and confusion factors analysis. DISCUSSION: Limitations. Using a new DI classification make difficult external comparisons, although it is useful because we use generalised and prestigious data sources. Applicability. The project produces a tool to avoid prescription errors. Checking the effectiveness in different corrective measures allows to take reasoned decisions for future interventions in quality 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.