ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2005
Failure to act on good intentions.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Doctors' attitudes to, beliefs about, and experiences of the regulation of professional competence: a scoping review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2019Article
- The Evolving Purposes of Medical Revalidation in the United Kingdom: A Qualitative Study of Professional and Regulatory Narratives.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2018Article
- Quality and impact of appraisal for revalidation: the perceptions of London's responsible officers and their appraisers.BMC medical education · 2015Article
- Revalidation and electronic cataract surgery audit: a Scottish survey on current practice and opinion.Eye (London, England) · 2011Article
- Use of process measures to monitor the quality of clinical practice.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2007Article
- Regulation and revalidation of doctors.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006Article
- Where next with revalidation?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Article
- Time for radical reform.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Review
- The General Medical Council and the future of revalidation: GMC member responds.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Article
- The General Medical Council and the future of revalidation: regulation, regulation, regulation.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Article
- The General Medical Council and the future of revalidation: profession needs to debate regulator's role.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Article
- The General Medical Council and the future of revalidation: revalidation, discretionary points, clinical excellence awards--steps on the same ladder.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Article
- The General Medical Council and the future of revalidation: GMC prepares to deliver notable improvements.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Article
- Revalidation in the UK.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Article
- Monitoring surgical mortality.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- 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.