ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2013
A survey of French general practitioners and a qualitative study on their use and assessment of predictive clinical scores.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the general practitioners' point of view about clinical scores: a qualitative study.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2023Article
- GPs' familiarity with and use of cardiovascular clinical prediction rules: a UK survey study.BJGP open · 2020Article
- Understanding clinical prediction models as 'innovations': a mixed methods study in UK family practice.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016Article
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
backgroundPredictive clinical scores, diagnostic as well as prognostic, are considered to be useful tools for making decisions under conditions of uncertainty. They are not intended to replace clinical judgment or medical experience, but to help physicians in the interpretation of clinical information. The general practitioner (GP), the gateway to care in the French health system, should be the main beneficiary of their utilization. However, there is no information on the prevalence of their use in general practice in France.
methodsA national, transversal epidemiological survey was conducted by electronic mail among GPs belonging to the French Sentinelles network. GPs were asked about their use of scores, the context of their utilization and the expected benefit. A qualitative study (focus groups) was also carried out with three groups of GPs within the context of continuous medical education.
resultsThe study consisted of 358 GPs. They were questioned on their use of seven predictive clinical scores (six diagnostic and one prognostic). Clinical scores were used by 75% of GPs, with no statistical difference with regard to their age or sex. The most often used were: the Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE) (95%), Fagerström test (90%), Hamilton scale (65%), McIsaac scores (61%), DETA/CAGE (45%), Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE) for osteoporosis (33%), and the only prognostic score CHADS2 (28%). Clinical scores were especially used when elderly people were involved (77%) and when the diagnosis was uncertain (63%). The qualitative study gave additional information on the barriers and obstacles to the use of predictive clinical scores.
conclusionThis study, the first one in France, gives information on the perception of clinical scores and on the rationale for their use by GPs. Suggestions to improve the situation (availability and rate of utilization of clinical scores) are provided.
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.