ArticleAtencion primaria2006
[Selection of quality indicators for primary care prescription through a consensus group].
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do we need individualised prescribing quality assessment? The case of diabetes treatment.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2011Article
- [Patient workload and costs, intensity and quality of family doctor prescriptions].Atencion primaria · 2011Article
- Methods to identify the target population: implications for prescribing quality indicators.BMC health services research · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo work out a system of indicators for improvement of primary care prescription, by incorporating the values and views of the professionals issuing prescriptions.
designQualitative technique to search for consensus among experts, based on nominal groups.
settingAll primary care areas in the Health Service of Aragon, Spain.
participantsPrimary care doctors, doctors in primary care management teams, specialists, primary care pharmacists.
methodTwo parallel groups involving a total of 24 experts were formed. In the session these questions were posed: "what indicators focusing on the drug and what indicators relating diagnosis and treatment do you think most useful for evaluating prescription quality?" Each panellist put forward indicators that were then discussed and placed on a scale of 1 to 9.
resultsOne hundred and thirty six indicators were generated, 81 drug-focused and 55 relating diagnosis and treatment; 56% were given a weighting above 5. The 2 groups coincided in 11 cases. The most valued indicators were generally those that brought a greater degree of consensus.
conclusionIt is feasible, through this technique, to produce a set of agreed indicators for evaluating primary care doctors' prescription.
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.