ArticleAtencion primaria2005
[Validity of clinical records and information systems in studies of health-care delivery in primary care].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivesTo examine how well the clinical process was recorded in the clinical history (CH), and care delivery on the activity sheet (AS). To assemble a series of recommendations on the validity of these documents for recording health care delivery.
designMulti-centred, observational, and cross-sectonal study.
settingFour medical clinics at 12 health centres in the Community of Valencia, Spain.
participantsThere were 2051 attendances, with 284 CH and 407 AS involved. Main measurements and results. The information recorded by doctors in the CH and on the AS was validated by external observers who collected directly at the consultation the working day's entire care activity. The following was analysed: 1) in the CH, filling out of the "SOAP" form (basic info.); 2) on the AS, mean per professional per day of scheduled and on-demand patients, home visits and length of consultations; 3) information in the documents validated on the organisation of consultations; 4) analysis of care delivery according to how predictable it is and its clinical content; 5) clinical practice guidelines with validity and clinical usefulness indicators and reliability index (kappa).
conclusionsThe documents validated do not properly reflect the reality of health care demand. There was an under-recording bias and validity problems that may limit their usefulness as sources of information for health care planning and management.
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.