ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2008
Can you use a sequential sample of patients as a substitute for a full practice audit?: Study of mammography screening rates in 20 family practices in Ontario.
Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare rates of mammography screening among women in family practices, based on a sequential sample of eligible women presenting to the practices during an 8-week period, with rates found in a full audit of all eligible patients.
designChart review.
settingTwenty community-based family practices in south-central Ontario.
participantsFamily physicians and their female patients 52 to 71 years old who had had at least 1 visit to the office during the past 3 years.
interventionEligible patients were sampled by 2 approaches: sequential sampling of patients coming for appointments during an 8-week period and a full practice audit of all eligible women.
main outcome measureMammography rates found using the 2 approaches.
resultsThe mean time-appropriate rate of mammography screening based on the sequential sample was 66.4%. The mean time-appropriate rate of mammography screening for the full practice audit was 58.8%. The sequential sample rate was higher than that of the full audit by 7.6%; differences ranged from -6.5% to 24.9% among practices. Regression analysis indicated a positive and significant correlation between rates based on the data generated by the 2 different approaches (r2 = 0.50).
conclusionA rate of mammography screening based on a sequential sample can reasonably approximate the actual rate of mammography screening that would be found based on a full practice audit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18854475PMC2567252W2126712637What 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.