ArticleAtencion primaria2006
[Retrospective application of adjusted clinical groups (ACGs) at a primary care centre].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Promising algorithms to perilous applications: a systematic review of risk stratification tools for predicting healthcare utilisation.BMJ health & care informatics · 2024Pooled it
- Relationship between efficiency and clinical effectiveness indicators in an adjusted model of resource consumption: a cross-sectional study.BMC health services research · 2013Article
- [Identification of pharmacy cost outliers in primary care].Atencion primaria · 2009Article
- The relationship between effectiveness and costs measured by a risk-adjusted case-mix system: multicentre study of Catalonian population data bases.BMC public health · 2009Article
- Variability in prescription drug expenditures explained by adjusted clinical groups (ACG) case-mix: a cross-sectional study of patient electronic records in primary care.BMC health services research · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate retrospectively the application of adjusted clinical groups (ACGs) at a primary care centre.
designDescriptive, retrospective examination.
settingUrban.
participantsAll patients seen by the team in 2000 were included in the study. Those who moved or died during the study period were excluded. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Universal variables (age and sex), dependant variables (visits, episodes, and costs), and case-mix or comorbidity variables (ACGs 2.0) were measured. The model of cost per patient was established by distinguishing the costs of the PCC from the variables. The ICPC was converted to the ICD-9-CM and a multiple linear regression analysis was performed to predict the models.
resultsThe total number of patients studied was 15 983, with an average of 5.0+/-3.2 episodes and 8.0+/-7.7 visits during the year. The power of explanation of the variability of the classification between the number of episodes was 71.9%; of the visits, 50.0% (with refinement, 56.3%); and cost, 30.2% (with refinement, 55.0%) (P=.000).
conclusionsACGs were shown to be an acceptable system for classifying patients according to the consumption of resources used in primary care. In addition, the methodology used was adequate for integrating clinical and economic information at the PCC.
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.