Trial reportAnnals of family medicine
Rapid assessment of agents of biological terrorism: defining the differential diagnosis of inhalational anthrax using electronic communication in a practice-based research network.
Trial report in Annals of family medicine. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electronic data collection options for practice-based research networks.Annals of family medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeEarly detection of bioterrorism requires assessment of diagnoses assigned to cases of rare diseases with which clinicians have little experience. In this study, we evaluated the process of defining the differential diagnosis for inhalational anthrax using electronic communication within a practice-based research network (PBRN) and compared the results with those obtained from a nationwide random sample of family physicians with a mailed instrument.
methodsWe distributed survey instruments by e-mail to 55 physician members of the Wisconsin Research Network (WReN), a regional PBRN. The instruments consisted of 3 case vignettes randomly drawn from a set describing 11 patients with inhalational anthrax, 2 with influenza A, and 1 with Legionella pneumonia. Physicians provided their most likely nonanthrax diagnosis, along with their responses to 4 yes-or-no management questions for each case. Physicians who had not responded at 1 week received a second e-mail with the survey instrument. The comparison group consisted of the nationwide sample of physicians who completed mailed survey instruments. Primary outcome measures were response rate, median response time, and frequencies of diagnostic categories assigned to cases of inhalational anthrax.
resultsThe PBRN response rate compared favorably with that of the national sample (47.3% vs 37.0%; P = not significant). The median response time for the PBRN was significantly shorter than that for the national sample (2 vs 28 days; P < .001). No significant differences were found between the PBRN and the Midwest subset of the national sample in the frequencies of major diagnostic categories or in case management.
conclusionsElectronic means of creating differential diagnoses for rare infectious diseases of national significance is feasible within PBRNs. Information is much more rapidly acquired and is consistent with that obtained by conventional methods.
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.