Trial reportAtencion primaria2005
[Efficacy of educational sessions to modify the prescription of new drugs].
Trial report in Atencion primaria, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009Pooled it
- [Effectiveness of an intervention strategy in the biosimilar glargine prescription pattern in primary care].Atencion primariaArticle
- [Quasi-experimental study of an intervention on the pharmacological management of non-oncological chronic pain in Primary Care].Atencion primariaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of an educational intervention to minimise the prescription of those new medicines whose therapeutic effects are of little benefit.
designControlled and randomised experimental study.
setting27 health centres in the province of Sevilla, Spain.
participants376 general practitioners. The 264 who worked in the same posts were randomised for the 6 pre-intervention months. 10 of them did not complete the post-intervention period.
interventionsFour 45-minute training sessions in a 2-month period, given by health team doctors, with a critical reading of the studies available on recently marketed drugs, plus personal feed-back on prescription and bulletins on therapeutic novelties. The control group received only the feed-back and bulletins. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Prescription of new medication of little benefit, measured as the number of packages out of the total. Second, the amount of coxib and eprosartan measured as defined daily doses.
resultsIn the 6 months after the educational sessions, the doctors in the intervention group prescribed proportionately fewer therapeutic novelties of little benefit than those allocated to the control group (1.34% vs 1.62%; P<.001). The coxib and eprosartan prescribed showed only a non-significant trend towards less prescription by the intervention group.
conclusionsThe group educational sessions, run by doctors trained in aspects of evidence-based medicine and prepared jointly with the pharmacy unit, reduced discreetly the prescription of new medicines that were not very innovative.
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.