Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2005
Evaluation of a general practitioner with special interest service for dermatology: randomised controlled trial.
Trial report 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 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.
- Referral interventions from primary to specialist care: a systematic review of international evidence.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014Pooled it
- Clinical outcomes of an integrated primary-secondary model of care for individuals with complex type 2 diabetes: a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.Diabetologia · 2019Trial
- The work of local healthcare innovation: a qualitative study of GP-led integrated diabetes care in primary health care.BMC health services research · 2016Trial
- Trial
- Evaluating the transferability of a hospital-based childhood obesity clinic to primary care: a randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2012Trial
- Economic evaluation of a general practitioner with special interests led dermatology service in primary care.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Trial
- Reorganising dermatology care: predictors of the substitution of secondary care with primary care.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Assessing patient satisfaction with a microsuction service in general practice: a comparative study.BJGP open · 2019Article
- A categorisation of problems and solutions to improve patient referrals from primary to specialty care.BMC health services research · 2018Review
- Dedicated general practitioner education sessions can improve diagnostic capabilities and may have a positive effect on referral patterns for common skin lesions.Irish journal of medical science · 2018Article
- Implementing and evaluating a primary care service for oral surgery: a case study.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Clinical and economic benefit of general practitioner integration to a symptomatic breast service.Irish journal of medical science · 2016Article
- Dermatology, an interdisciplinary approach between community and hospital care.JRSM short reports · 2013Article
- Counting on commitment; the quality of primary care-led diabetes management in a system with minimal incentives.BMC health services research · 2011Article
- Minor surgery in general practice and effects on referrals to hospital care: observational study.BMC health services research · 2011Article
- Minor surgery activity in primary care.JRSM short reports · 2010Article
- A cost minimisation analysis in teledermatology: model-based approach.BMC health services research · 2010Review
- [Organisational reforms in the relationships between general doctors and specialists: impact on referrals].Atencion primaria · 2010Article
- Mind the gap between policy imperatives and service provision: a qualitative study of the process of respiratory service development in England and Wales.BMC health services research · 2008Article
- Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using Best-Worst Scaling: comparison of various methods of analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the effectiveness, accessibility, and acceptability of a general practitioner with special interest service for skin problems compared with a hospital dermatology clinic.
designRandomised controlled trial.
settingGeneral practitioner with special interest dermatology service and hospital dermatology clinic.
participantsAdults referred to a hospital dermatology clinic and assessed by a consultant or the general practitioner with special interest service,. Suitable patients had non-urgent skin problems and had been identified from the referral letter as suitable for management by a general practitioner with special interest.
interventionsParticipants were randomised in 2:1 ratio to receive management by a general practitioner with special interest or usual hospital outpatient care.
main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were disease related quality of life (dermatology life quality index) and improvement in patients' perception of access to services, assessed nine months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, preference for site of care, proportion of failed appointments, and waiting times to first appointment.
results49% of the participants were judged suitable for care by the general practitioner with special interest service. Of 768 patients eligible, 556 (72.4%) were randomised (354 to general practitioner with special interest, 202 to hospital outpatient care). After nine months, 422 (76%) were followed up. No noticeable differences were found between the groups in clinical outcome (median dermatology life quality index score = 1 both arms, ratio of geometric means 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.15). The general practitioner with special interest service was more accessible (difference between means on access scale 14, 11 to 19) and waited a mean of 40 (35 to 46) days less. Patients expressed slightly greater satisfaction with consultations with a general practitioner with special interest (difference in mean satisfaction score 4, 1 to 7), and at baseline and after nine months 61% said they preferred care at the service.
conclusionsThe general practitioner with special interest service for dermatology was more accessible and preferred by patients than hospital outpatient care, achieving similar clinical outcomes. Trial registration ISRCTN31962758.
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.