Capturing general practice quality: a new paradigm?

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Evaluation of the introduction of QOF quality improvement modules in English general practice: early findings from a rapid, qualitative exploration of implementation.BMJ open quality · 2022
   Article
2. Quality improvement in general practice: what do GPs and practice managers think? Results from a nationally representative survey of UK GPs and practice managers.BMJ open quality · 2021
   Article
3. Patient experience and the role of postgraduate GP training: a cross-sectional analysis of national Patient Survey data in England.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014
   Article
4. The Wow test in quality.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2013
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  The Wow test in quality.2013

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as