ReviewAtencion primaria2005
[Research in primary care: 1994-2003].
Review in Atencion primaria, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing clinical research in the Spanish primary care service: Challenges, opportunities, and lessons from other European models.The European journal of general practice · 2025Article
- [Bibliometric map of research done in primary care in Spain during the period 2008-2012].Atencion primaria · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo analyse the characteristics of the original articles published in the journal Atención Primaria (Primary Care) during the last 10 years.
designLiterature study.
settingPrimary health care.
participantsOriginal articles published in Atención Primaria between 1994 and 2003. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The professional category of the authors, whether it was a multidisciplinary or multicentred study, the autonomous community of origin, the topic, the type of study, and if it had a grant or financial assistance.
results1229 articles have been reviewed. In 40.0% of them a family doctor is included in the authorship. 31.4% can be considered multidisciplinary and 20.5% multicentred. The Communities of Valencia, Madrid, Andalusia, and Catalonia took up 60% of the volume of publications. The most common topic is the provision and organisation of the health services (40.5%). Only 4.3% of the designs are experimental. A grant or financial aid is stated in 16.2% of the articles.
conclusionsAlthough the situation as regards the previous years has not varied too much, some positive findings, such as the emergence of research groups, increasing presence of multicentre and multidisciplinary studies, better access to sources of finance, etc, suggest that we are in a process of improving the quality of research in primary care.
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.