Trial reportScandinavian journal of primary health care2013
A randomized controlled trial comparing two ways of providing evidence-based drug information to GPs.
Trial report in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effectiveness of interventions to disseminate the results of non-commercial randomised clinical trials to healthcare professionals: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Implementation Strategies for Non-communicable Disease Guidelines in Primary Health Care.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate whether tailored evidence-based drug information (EBDI) to general practitioners (GPs) can change the proportion of ACE inhibitor prescriptions more effectively than EBDI provided as usual three and six months after the intervention.
designRandomized controlled trial.
settingGPs in southern Sweden working at primary health care centres (PHCCs) in seven drug and therapeutic committee areas.
interventionEBDI tailored to motivational interviewing (MI) technique and focused on the benefit aspect was compared with EBDI provided as usual. SUBJECTS: There were 408 GPs in the intervention group and 583 GPs in the control group.
main outcome measuresChange in proportion of ACE inhibitor prescriptions relative to the sum of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, three and six months after the intervention.
resultsThe GPs' average proportions of prescribed ACE inhibitors increased in both groups. No statistically significant differences in the change of proportions were found between intervention and control groups. Information was provided to 29% of GPs in both groups.
conclusionThis study could not prove that specially tailored EBDI using MI implements guidelines more effectively than EBDI provided as usual.
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.