ArticleOman medical journal2011
An audit of hypertension at university health center in oman.
Article in Oman medical journal, 2011. 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.
- Hypertension in Oman: Where Do We Stand?Oman medical journal · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo audit the documentation of medical care provided to hypertensive patients and to evaluate the management of hypertension in a primary healthcare center, Family Medicine Staff Clinic, Sultan Qaboos University (SQU) in Oman.
methodsAn audit of electronic medical records (EMR) was carried out during 2007and 2008 on a representative sample of 150 patients, selected randomly using a simple randomization method. The mean age of the patients was 54.8 +/- 9.9 years. The majority were Omanis; 53.3% were female, 46.7% were male. All patients' records were reviewed for proper recording in a pre designed structured form. Re-auditing was done in 2008. McNemar's test was used to compare data in 2007 with data in 2008.
resultsAge, gender, blood pressure recording, renal function tests, and lipid levels were sufficiently recorded (>75%) in the computer system. Histories of pertinent symptoms and smoking history were poorly recorded (<1%). Fifty-five percent of the hypertensive patients were sufficiently controlled (BP<140/90). There were significant differences between 2007 and 2008 with respect to documentation and recording of pertinent symptoms (p<0.001) and renal function tests (p=0.026).
conclusionConducting an audit of EMR is essential to evaluate clinical performance and to determine what changes should be made to improve quality of care. There was significant improvement in documentation of pertinent symptoms in the second audit.
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.