Observational studyAtencion primaria2015
[Evaluation of referral process of the hypertensive patient in Spain: DERIVA study].
Observational study in Atencion primaria, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Primary care evaluation of the hypertensive patient management in specialized care after derivation (DERIVA-2 Study)].Atencion primariaObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAn adequate communication between levels of medical attention is the key point for optimal treatment and outcomes of the hypertensive population.
aimsThe aim of this study was to evaluate the adequacy of the hypertensive patients' derivation from Primary Care to Specialized Care. As secondary objectives, the information registered on the derivation report was assessed and concordance between derivation reason and final diagnosis was analysed.
designThis is an observational, descriptive, multicentre study. SITE: Study conducted at the national level.
participantsSpecialty Care Physicians receiving hypertensive patients referred from primary care. PRINCIPAL MEASUREMENTS: On the baseline visit, the specialist physicians assessed the quality of the derivation records and attended the patient. After the study, final diagnosis and treatment is suggested on the final visit.
results1769 subjects were included, mean aged 62,4 (13,6) years, 45% female. Time of diagnosis of hypertension was 8,0 (7,7) years. More than the half of the derivation records contained very good information (5,4%; CI4,3-6,5) or sufficient (50,7%; CI48,4-53,0). In 7,1% (IC5,9-8,3) derivation cause was not specified. 74,7% of the derivations were considered as appropriate, though 30% were late. Concordance between derivation reasons and final diagnosis was low (kappa index 0,208).
conclusionsA quarter of the hypertensive population is unnecessary derived to Secondary Care and 30% of the appropriately derived was late. We should improve the interrelation of attention in the hypertension and cardiovascular area between the both attention levels.
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.