ReviewJournal of clinical pathology2006
Best practice in primary care pathology: review 3.
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 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of anaemia in primary care patients with chronic kidney disease: cross sectional study of quality improvement in chronic kidney disease (QICKD) trial data.BMC nephrology · 2013Trial
- The Results of Hemoglobin Variant Analysis in Patients Revealing Microcytic Erythrocytosis on Complete Blood Count.Laboratory medicine · 2018Article
- Observational
- Routine OGTT screening for CFRD - no thanks.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2009Article
- 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
- 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
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 5.Journal of clinical pathology · 2006Review
- Investigating iron status in microcytic anaemia.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006Article
- Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) monitoring.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006Review
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 4.Journal of clinical pathology · 2006Review
- Testing pitfalls and summary of guidance in lipid management.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This best practice review examines four series of common primary care questions in laboratory medicine: (i) "minor" blood platelet count and haemoglobin abnormalities; (ii) diagnosis and monitoring of anaemia caused by iron deficiency; (iii) secondary hyperlipidaemia and hypertriglyceridaemia; and (iv) glycated haemoglobin and microalbumin use in diabetes. The review is presented in question-answer format, referenced for each question series. The recommendations represent a précis of 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 the recommendations are based on consensus rather than evidence. 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.