Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17132386›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2006

GPs' attitudes to benzodiazepine and 'Z-drug' prescribing: a barrier to implementation of evidence and guidance on hypnotics.

A Niroshan Siriwardena, Zubair Qureshi, Steve Gibson, Sarah Collier, Martin Latham

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Dependence on zopiclone: a case report.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Structural and dynamic mechanisms of GABANature communications · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A Niroshan SiriwardenaSchool of Health and Social Care, University of Lincoln, Lincoln. nsiriwardena@lincoln.ac.uk
Zubair Qureshi
Steve Gibson
Sarah Collier
Martin Latham
University of Lincoln · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Zaleplon, zolpidem, and zopiclone ('Z-drugs') prescribing is gradually rising in the UK, while that of benzodiazepine hypnotics is falling. This situation is contrary to current evidence and guidance on hypnotic prescribing. The aim of this study was to determine and compare primary care physicians' perceptions of benefits and risks of benzodiazepine and Z-drug use, and physicians' prescribing behaviour in relation to hypnotics using a cross-sectional survey. In 2005 a self-administered postal questionnaire was sent to all GPs in West Lincolnshire Primary Care Trust. The questionnaire investigated perceptions of benefits and disadvantages of benzodiazepines and Z-drugs. Of the 107 questionnaires sent to GPs, 84 (78.5%) analysable responses were received. Responders believed that Z-drugs were more effective than benzodiazepines in terms of patients feeling rested on waking (P<0.001), daytime functioning (P<0.001), and total sleep time (P = 0.03). Z-drugs were also thought to be safer in terms of tolerance (P<0.001), addiction (P<0.001), dependence (P<0.001), daytime sleepiness (P<0.001), and road traffic accidents (P = 0.018), and were thought to be safer for older people (P<0.001). There were significant differences between GPs' perceptions of the relative benefits and risk of Z-drugs compared with benzodiazepines. The majority of practitioners attributed greater efficacy and lower side effects to Z-drugs. GPs' beliefs about effectiveness and safety are not determined by current evidence or national (NICE) guidance which may explain the increase in Z-drug prescribing relative to benzodiazepine prescribing.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelBenzodiazepinesFamily PracticeHypnotics and SedativesPractice Patterns, Physicians'AcetamidesAdultAgedAzabicyclo CompoundsCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPiperazinesAcetamidesAzabicyclo CompoundsBenzodiazepinesHypnotics and SedativesPiperazinesPyridinesPyrimidineszaleplonZolpidemzopiclone

Identifiers

PMID17132386
PMCPMC1934058
OpenAlexW2150983533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.