Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23972196›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2013

Prescription peer academic detailing to reduce inappropriate prescribing for older patients: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Sture Rognstad, Mette Brekke, Arne Fetveit, Ingvild Dalen, Jørund Straand

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sture RognstadDepartment of General Practice, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Norway. sture.rognstad@medisin.uio.no
Mette Brekke
Arne Fetveit
Ingvild Dalen
Jørund Straand
University of Oslo · NOGeneral Department of Preventive Medicine · VN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOlder patients are at particular risk for adverse drug reactions. In older people, interventions targeting potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) are considered important measures to minimise drug-related harm, especially in the general practice setting where most prescriptions for older patients are issued.

aimTo study the effects of a multifaceted educational intervention on GPs' PIPs for older patients. DESIGN AND

settingThis was a cluster randomised, educational intervention study in Norwegian general practice. Pre-study data were captured from January 2005 to December 2005 and post-study data from June 2006 to June 2007. The educational intervention was carried out from January 2006 to June 2006.

methodEighty continuing medical education (CME) groups (465 GPs) were randomised to receive the educational intervention on GPs' PIPs for older patients (41 CME groups; 256 GPs) or another educational intervention (39 CME groups; 209 GPs); these two groups acted as controls for each other. GPs' prescription data from before and after the intervention were assessed against a list of 13 explicit PIP criteria for patients aged ≥70 years. In the CME groups, trained GPs carried out an educational programme, including an audit, focusing on the 13 criteria and their rationale.

resultsA total of 449 GPs (96.6%) completed the study; 250 in the intervention group and 199 in the control group. After adjusting for baseline differences and clustering effects, a reduction relative to baseline of 10.3% (95% confidence interval = 5.9 to 15.0) PIPs per 100 patients aged ≥70 years was obtained.

conclusionEducational outreach visits with feedback and audit, using GPs as academic detailers in GPs' CME groups, reduced PIPs for older patients aged ≥70 years in general practice.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, ContinuingAgedCluster AnalysisFeedbackFemaleGeneral PracticeHumansInappropriate PrescribingMaleMiddle AgedNorway

Identifiers

PMID23972196
PMCPMC3722832
OpenAlexW2110622465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.