ReviewJournal of clinical pathology2006
Best practice in primary care pathology: review 4.
Review in Journal of clinical pathology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Pain medication in nursing home residents with and without cancer. Most frequently with metamizole].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2015Article
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 10.Journal of clinical pathology · 2007Review
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 9.Journal of clinical pathology · 2007Review
- The state of play in the battle against antimicrobial resistance: a general practitioner perspective.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2007Article
- 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
- Pitfalls of testing and summary of guidance on safety monitoring with amiodarone and digoxin.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2007Review
- Cases in primary care laboratory medicine: testing pitfalls and summary of guidance on sex hormone testing.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2007Review
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 5.Journal of clinical pathology · 2006Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This fourth best practice review examines four series of common primary care questions in laboratory medicine are examined in this review: (1) safety monitoring for three common drugs; (2) use of prostate-specific antigen; (3) investigation of vaginal discharge; and (4) investigation of subfertility. The review is presented in question-answer format, referenced for each question series. The recommendations represent a precis of the 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 of them are consensus based 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.