ArticleClinical medicine insights. Arthritis and musculoskeletal disorders2013
Monitoring Osteoarthritis: A Cross-sectional Survey in General Practice.
Article in Clinical medicine insights. Arthritis and musculoskeletal disorders, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-pharmacological treatment gap preceding surgical consultation in thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis - a cross-sectional study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2019Trial
- Implementing international osteoarthritis treatment guidelines in primary health care: study protocol for the SAMBA stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial.Implementation science : IS · 2015Trial
- Patient-Reported Quality of Care for Osteoarthritis in General Practice in South Tyrol, Italy: Protocol for Translation, Validation and Assessment of the OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator Questionnaire (OA-QI).Methods and protocols · 2023Article
- Improving osteoarthritis management in primary healthcare: results from a quasi-experimental study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- Rehabilitation needs in individuals with knee OA in rural Western Cape, South Africa: an exploratory qualitative study.Primary health care research & development · 2020Article
- Toward Standardized Monitoring of Patients With Chronic Diseases in Primary Care Using Electronic Medical Records: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2019Review
- Challenges of diagnosing and managing polymyalgia rheumatica: a multi-methods study in UK general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Article
- Challenges of diagnosis and management of giant cell arteritis in general practice: a multimethods study.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Self-reported quality care for knee osteoarthritis: comparisons across Denmark, Norway, Portugal and the UK.RMD open · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite being a highly prevalent chronic condition managed predominantly in primary care and unlike other chronic conditions, osteoarthritis (OA) care is delivered on an ad hoc basis rather than through routine structured review. Evidence suggests current levels of OA care are suboptimal, but little is known about what general practitioners' (GPs) consider important in OA care, and, thus, the scope to improve inconsistency or poor practice is, at present, limited.
objectivesWe investigated GPs' views on and practice of monitoring OA.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional postal survey of 2500 practicing UK GPs randomly selected from the Binley's database. Respondents were asked if monitoring OA patients was important and how monitoring should be undertaken.
resultsResponses were received from 768 GPs of whom 70.8% were male and 89.5% were principals within their practices. Despite 55.4% (n = 405) indicating monitoring patients with OA was important and 78.3% (n = 596) considering GPs the appropriate professionals to monitor OA, only 15.2% (n = 114) did so routinely, and 45% (n = 337) did not monitor any OA patients at all. In total, 61.4% (n = 463) reported that patients should self-monitor. Respondents favored monitoring physical function, pain, and analgesia use over monitoring measures of BMI, self management plans, and exercise advice.
conclusionsThe majority of respondents felt that monitoring OA was important, but this was not reflected in their reported current practice. Much of what they favored for monitoring was in line with published guidance, suggesting provision of suboptimal care does not result from lack of knowledge and interventions to improve OA care must address barriers to GPs engaging in optimal care provision.
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.