Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17286919›Full record

SynthesisAtencion primaria2007

[A systematic review of therapy coordination between primary and specialist care].

Eladio Fernández Liz, Francisco José Luque Mellado

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Atencion primaria, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eladio Fernández LizServei d'Atenció Primària Muntanya de Barcelona, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain. efernandez@ics.scs.es
Francisco José Luque Mellado
Institut Català de la Salut · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate existing information on questions of therapy coordination between primary and hospital care and to identify activities with positive results that could be adapted at the local level.

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, SIETES, and Cochrane systematic review databases were searched for articles published between January 1990 and August 2005. SELECTION OF STUDIES: Those conducted in countries with a National Health Service. Thirty-six studies were included: a) observational studies on drug prescription for patients moving between primary and specialist care (18 studies); b) studies of the views of health professionals: review and consensus articles and editorials (7 articles); qualitative studies (4 articles); c) intervention studies (7 studies). Four-hundred and thirty-one studies were excluded.

resultsThe most common problems were: lack of information for patient follow-up, disagreement in drug selection, increases in costs due to hospital stays and difficulties in assuming clinical responsibilities. The solution put forward was that a unified policy of common medicines and budgets is essential. Little information was available on the studies that posed or evaluated interventions to improve therapy coordination. Conditions with the most information available were heart failure, diabetes mellitus, asthma, high blood pressure, and anticoagulant treatment.

conclusionsThe creation of pharmacotherapy committees, involving professionals belonging to both primary and specialist care, was proposed. These committees would adapt for local use protocols and clinical practice guidelines, in line with the prescription quality standards of primary care.

Indexed as

MedicinePharmacy and Therapeutics CommitteePrimary Health CareSpecializationHumans

Identifiers

PMID17286919
PMCPMC7713405
OpenAlexW2086365074

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.