Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25024243›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of family medicine2014

Electronic health records for intervention research: a cluster randomized trial to reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care (eCRT study).

Martin C Gulliford, Tjeerd van Staa, Alex Dregan, Lisa McDermott, Gerard McCann, Mark Ashworth, Judith Charlton, Paul Little, Michael V Moore, Lucy Yardley

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of family medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

10 authors.

Martin C GullifordKing's College London, Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, London, United Kingdom.
Tjeerd van StaaClinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Division, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, London, United Kingdom London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Alex DreganKing's College London, Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, London, United Kingdom alexandru.dregan@kcl.ac.uk.
Lisa McDermottDivision of Community Clinical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Gerard McCannClinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Division, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Mark AshworthKing's College London, Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, London, United Kingdom.
Judith CharltonKing's College London, Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, London, United Kingdom.
Paul LittleDivision of Community Clinical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Michael V MooreDivision of Community Clinical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Lucy YardleyDivision of Community Clinical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MC_PC_13042Medical Research Council MR/K006665/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to implement a point-of-care cluster randomized trial using electronic health records. We evaluated the effectiveness of electronically delivered decision support tools at reducing antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections in primary care.

methodsFamily practices from England and Scotland participating in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) were included in the trial; 53 family practices were allocated to intervention and 51 practices were allocated to usual care. Patients aged 18 to 59 years consulting for respiratory tract infections were eligible. The intervention was through remotely installed, computer-delivered decision support tools accessed during the consultations. Control practices provided usual care. The primary outcome was the proportion of consultations for respiratory tract infections with an antibiotic prescribed based on electronic health records. Family practice-specific proportions were included in a cluster-level analysis.

resultsData were analyzed for 603,409 patients: 317,717 at intervention practices and 285,692 at control practices. Use of the intervention was less than anticipated, varying among practices. There was a reduction in proportion of consultations with antibiotics prescribed of 1.85% (95% CI, 0.10%-3.59%, P=.038) and in the rate of antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (9.69%; 95% CI, 0.75%-18.63%, fewer prescriptions per 1,000 patient-years, P=.034). There were no adverse events.

conclusionsCluster randomized trials may be implemented efficiently in large samples from routine care settings by using primary care electronic health records. Future studies should develop and test multicomponent methods for remotely delivered intervention.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAdolescentAdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsCluster AnalysisElectronic Health RecordsEnglandFamily PracticeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareRespiratory Tract InfectionsScotlandAnti-Bacterial Agentsantibioticelectronic health recordsprimary health carerandomized controlled trialrespiratory tract infection

Identifiers

PMID25024243
PMCPMC4096472

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.