ArticleBMC public health2008
Women with learning disabilities and Read coding: lessons from a cohort study.
Article in BMC public health, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Identifying people with a learning disability: an advanced search for general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim was to examine any differences in the way that Read codes are applied to the records for female patients with learning disabilities across three PCT areas. To ascertain the most commonly used read codes for learning disability.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study carried out in Bury, Heywood-and-Middleton and Rochdale PCTs. All women in the eligible age-group (25-64) as of the 1st June, 2005, who were in contact with the Learning Disabilities Teams in the relevant PCT areas were identified from the Teams' lists. The appropriate Read Codes were then used to identify women on GP systems. Patient data is stored on the GP database systems (Vision, EMIS, EMIS PC4 and Torex) and it was possible to search for patients with learning disabilities.
resultsThe use of Read Codes varies across the three areas. The most commonly used Read codes were E3 (Mental Retardation)--27%, PJ0. (Down's Syndrome)--14% and Eu81z (Learning Disabilities)--8%. In 24% of the records a Read Code had not been documented.
conclusionRead codes application varies between GP surgeries--dependent on PCT policy and the surgery's approach and also as a result of staff time.
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.