ReviewJournal of clinical pathology2005
Best practice in primary care pathology: review 1.
Review in Journal of clinical pathology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inappropriate laboratory test utilization in outpatient tertiary care: Implications for value-based healthcare.Saudi medical journal · 2024Article
- General practitioner views on the determinants of test ordering: a theory-based qualitative approach to the development of an intervention to improve immunoglobulin requests in primary care.Implementation science : IS · 2016Article
- Does type 1 diabetes mellitus affect Achilles tendon response to a 10 km run? A case control study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2015Article
- Vitamin B12 and cognitive function: an evidence-based analysis.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2013Review
- [Topiramate and vitamin B(12) deficiency].Atencion primaria · 2009Article
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 10.Journal of clinical pathology · 2007Review
- Macrocytosis: pitfalls in testing and summary of guidance.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2007Review
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 9.Journal of clinical pathology · 2007Review
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 8.Journal of clinical pathology · 2007Review
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 7.Journal of clinical pathology · 2007Review
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 6.Journal of clinical pathology · 2007Review
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 5.Journal of clinical pathology · 2006Review
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 4.Journal of clinical pathology · 2006Review
- Megaloblastic anemia and other causes of macrocytosis.Clinical medicine & research · 2006Review
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 3.Journal of clinical pathology · 2006Review
- Paraprotein management.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006Article
- Testing pitfalls and summary of guidance in lipid management.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This first best practice review examines four series of common primary care questions in laboratory medicine, namely: (i) measurement and monitoring of cholesterol and of liver and muscle enzymes in patients in the context of lipid lowering drugs, (ii) diagnosis and monitoring of vitamin B12/folate deficiency, (iii) investigation and monitoring of paraprotein bands in blood, and (iv) management of Helicobacter pylori infection. The review is presented in a question-answer format, referenced for each question series. The recommendations represent a précis of guidance found using a standardised literature search of national and international guidance notes, consensus statements, health policy documents, and evidence based medicine reviews, supplemented by MEDLINE EMBASE searches to identify relevant primary research documents. They are not standards but form a guide to be set in the clinical context. Most are consensus rather than evidence based. They will be updated periodically to take account of new information.
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.