Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24586577›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

Effects of physician-nurse substitution on clinical parameters: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Nahara Anani Martínez-González, Ryan Tandjung, Sima Djalali, Flore Huber-Geismann, Stefan Markun, Thomas Rosemann

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
21.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Nurses as substitutes for doctors in primary care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nahara Anani Martínez-GonzálezInstitute of Primary Care, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Ryan TandjungInstitute of Primary Care, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Sima DjalaliInstitute of Primary Care, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Flore Huber-GeismannInstitute of Primary Care, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Stefan MarkunInstitute of Primary Care, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Thomas RosemannInstitute of Primary Care, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
University of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysicians' shortage in many countries and demands of high-quality and affordable care make physician-nurse substitution an appealing workforce strategy. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the impact of physician-nurse substitution in primary care on clinical parameters.

methodsWe systematically searched OVID Medline and Embase, The Cochrane Library and CINAHL, up to August 2012; selected peer-reviewed RCTs comparing physician-led care with nurse-led care on changes in clinical parameters. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate by independent reviewers. We assessed the individual study risk of bias; calculated the study-specific and pooled relative risks (RR) or weighted mean differences (WMD); and performed fixed-effects meta-analyses.

results11 RCTs (N = 30,247) were included; most were from Europe, generally small with higher risk of bias. In all studies, nurses provided care for complex conditions including HIV, hypertension, heart failure, cerebrovascular diseases, diabetes, asthma, Parkinson's disease and incontinence. Meta-analyses showed greater reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) in favour of nurse-led care (WMD -4.27 mmHg, 95% CI -6.31 to -2.23) but no statistically significant differences between groups in the reduction of diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (WMD -1.48 mmHg, 95%CI -3.05 to -0.09), total cholesterol (TC) (WMD -0.08 mmol/l, 95%CI -0.22 to 0.07) or glycosylated haemoglobin (WMD 0.12%HbAc1, 95%CI -0.13 to 0.37). Of other 32 clinical parameters identified, less than a fifth favoured nurse-led care while 25 showed no significant differences between groups. LIMITATIONS: disease-specific interventions from a small selection of healthcare systems, insufficient quantity and quality of studies, many different parameters.

conclusionstrained nurses appeared to be better than physicians at lowering SBP but similar at lowering DBP, TC or HbA1c. There is insufficient evidence that nurse-led care leads to better outcomes of other clinical parameters than physician-led care.

Indexed as

NursesPhysiciansPrimary Health CareHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk

Identifiers

PMID24586577
PMCPMC3933531
OpenAlexW2111281729

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.