Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24940078›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2014

Reasons for encounter and diagnoses of new outpatients at a small community hospital in Japan: an observational study.

Taro Takeshima, Maki Kumada, Junichi Mise, Yoshinori Ishikawa, Hiromichi Yoshizawa, Takashi Nakamura, Masanobu Okayama, Eiji Kajii

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of general medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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.

Taro TakeshimaDivision of Community and Family Medicine, Center for Community Medicine, Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke, Japan ; Department of Healthcare Epidemiology, School of Public Health in the Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Maki KumadaDivision of The Project for Integration of Community Health, Center for Community Medicine, Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke, Japan ; Department of General Internal Medicine, Chikusei City Hospital, Chikusei, Japan.
Junichi MiseDivision of Human Resources Development for Community Medicine, Center for Community Medicine, Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke, Japan.
Yoshinori IshikawaDepartment of Surgery, Chikusei City Hospital, Chikusei, Japan.
Hiromichi YoshizawaDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Chikusei City Hospital, Chikusei, Japan.
Takashi NakamuraDivision of The Project for Integration of Community Health, Center for Community Medicine, Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke, Japan ; Department of General Internal Medicine, Chikusei City Hospital, Chikusei, Japan.
Masanobu OkayamaDivision of Community and Family Medicine, Center for Community Medicine, Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke, Japan.
Eiji KajiiDivision of Community and Family Medicine, Center for Community Medicine, Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAlthough many new patients are seen at small hospitals, there are few reports of new health problems from such hospitals in Japan. Therefore, we investigated the reasons for encounter (RFE) and diagnoses of new outpatients in a small hospital to provide educational resources for teaching general practice methods.

methodsThis observational study was conducted at the Department of General Internal Medicine in a small community hospital between May 6, 2010 and March 11, 2011. We classified RFEs and diagnoses according to component 1, "Symptoms/Complaints", and component 7, "Diagnosis/Diseases", of the International Classification of Primary Care, 2nd edition (ICPC-2). We also evaluated the differences between RFEs observed and common symptoms from the guidelines Model Core Curriculum for Medical Students and Goals of Clinical Clerkship.

resultsWe analyzed the data of 1,515 outpatients. There were 2,252 RFEs (1.49 per encounter) and 170 ICPC-2 codes. The top 30 RFE codes accounted for 80% of all RFEs and the top 55 codes accounted for 90%. There were 1,727 diagnoses and 196 ICPC-2 codes. The top 50 diagnosis codes accounted for 80% of all diagnoses, and the top 90 codes accounted for 90%. Of the 2,252 RFEs, 1,408 (62.5%) included at least one of the 36 symptoms listed in the Model Core Curriculum and 1,443 (64.1%) included at least one of the 35 symptoms in the Goals of Clinical Clerkship. On the other hand, "A91 Abnormal result investigation", "R21 Throat symptom/complaint", and "R07 Sneezing/nasal congestion", which were among the top 10 RFEs, were not included in these two guidelines.

conclusionWe identified the common RFEs and diagnoses at a small hospital in Japan and revealed the inconsistencies between the RFEs observed and common symptoms listed in the guidelines. Our findings can be useful in improving the general practice medical education curricula.

Indexed as

general practiceInternational Classification of Primary Caremedical educationprimary care

Identifiers

PMID24940078
PMCPMC4051729

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.