Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24868181›Full record

ReviewAdvances in medical education and practice2014

Factors associated with clinical inertia: an integrative review.

Isabelle Aujoulat, Patricia Jacquemin, Ernst Rietzschel, André Scheen, Patrick Tréfois, Johan Wens, Elisabeth Darras, Michel P Hermans

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in medical education and practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. How best to use and evaluate Patient Information Leaflets given during a consultation: a systematic review of literature reviews.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  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

8 authors.

Isabelle AujoulatUniversité Catholique de Louvain, Institute of Health and Society, Brussels.
Patricia JacqueminUniversité Catholique de Louvain, Institute of Health and Society, Brussels.
Ernst RietzschelGhent University, Department of Cardiovascular Diseases and Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent.
André ScheenUniversity of Liège, Division of Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolic Disorders and Clinical Pharmacology Unit, CHU Liège, Liège.
Patrick TréfoisSociété Scientifique de Médecine Générale, Brussels.
Johan WensUniversity of Antwerp, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Primary and Interdisciplinary Care Antwerp.
Elisabeth DarrasUniversité Catholique de Louvain, Institute of Health and Society, Brussels.
Michel P HermansUniversité Catholique de Louvain, Institute of Experimental and Clinical Research and Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Department of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Failure to initiate or intensify therapy according to evidence-based guidelines is increasingly being acknowledged as a phenomenon that contributes to inadequate management of chronic conditions, and is referred to as clinical inertia. However, the number and complexity of factors associated with the clinical reasoning that underlies the decision-making processes in medicine calls for a critical examination of the consistency of the concept. Indeed, in the absence of information on and justification of treatment decisions that were made, clinical inertia may be only apparent, and actually reflect good clinical practice. This integrative review seeks to address the factors generally associated with clinical inaction, in order to better delineate the concept of true clinical inertia.

Indexed as

clinical decisionclinical inertiaconcept clarificationevidence-based medicineintegrative reviewphysician adherence to guidelines

Identifiers

PMID24868181
PMCPMC4028485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.