ArticleClinical therapeutics2011
Time series evaluation of an intervention to increase statin tablet splitting by general practitioners.
Article in Clinical therapeutics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper: effects on professional practice and patient outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Concerns regarding tablet splitting: a systematic review.BJGP open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTablet splitting, in which a higher-dose tablet is split to get 2 doses, reduces patients' drug costs. Statins can be split safely. General practitioners (GPs) may not direct their patients to split statins because of safety concerns or unawareness of costs. Medical chart inserts provide cost-effective education to physicians.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess whether providing GPs with statin-splitting chart inserts would increase splitting rates, and to identify predictors of splitting.
methodsIn 2005 and 2006, we faxed a statin chart insert to British Columbia GPs with a request for a telephone interview. Consenting GPs were mailed 3 statin chart inserts and interviewed by phone (the intervention). In an interrupted time series, we compared monthly rates of statin-splitting prescriptions among intervention and nonintervention GPs before, during, and after the intervention. In multivariate logistic regressions accounting for patient clustering, predictors of splitting included physician and patient demographics and the specific statin prescribed.
resultsOf 5051 GPs reached, 282 (6%) agreed to the intervention. Before the intervention, GPs' splitting rate was 2.6%; after intervention, GPs' splitting rate was 7.5%. The rate for the nonintervention GPs was 4.4%. Intervention GPs were 1.68 (95% CI, 1.12-2.53) times more likely to prescribe splitting after the intervention than were nonintervention GPs. Other predictors were a patient's female sex (odds ratio [OR] = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.18-1.34), lower patient income (OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.18-1.34), and a lack of drug insurance (OR = 1.89; 95% CI, 1.69-2.04).
conclusionsAn inexpensive intervention was effective in producing a sustained increase in GPs' splitting rate during 22 months of observed follow-up. Expanding statin-splitting education to all GPs might reduce prescription costs for many patients and payors.
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.