ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2004
GPs' decisions on drug treatment for patients with high cholesterol values: a think-aloud study.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mixed methods evaluation of targeted case finding for cardiovascular disease prevention using a stepped wedged cluster RCT.BMC public health · 2012Trial
- Guideline adherence for the management of cardiovascular disease in primary care: a scoping review.Family practice · 2026Article
- Article
- The role of computerized decision support in reducing errors in selecting medicines for prescription: narrative review.Drug safety · 2011Review
- GPs' thoughts on prescribing medication and evidence-based knowledge: the benefit aspect is a strong motivator. A descriptive focus group study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2007Article
- The role of guidelines and the patient's life-style in GPs' management of hypercholesterolaemia.BMC family practice · 2004Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose was to examine how General Practitioners (GPs) use clinical information and rules from guidelines in their decisions on drug treatment for high cholesterol values.
methodsTwenty GPs were presented with six case vignettes and were instructed to think aloud while successively more information about a case was presented, and finally to decide if a drug should be prescribed or not. The statements were coded for the clinical information to which they referred and for favouring or not favouring prescription.
resultsThe evaluation of clinical information was compatible with decision-making as a search for reasons or arguments. Lifestyle-related information like smoking and overweight seemed to be evaluated from different perspectives. A patient's smoking favoured treatment for some GPs and disfavoured treatment for others.
conclusionsThe method promised to be useful for understanding why doctors differ in their decisions on the same patient descriptions and why rules from the guidelines are not followed strictly.
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.