Trial reportBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2016
A 'SMART' way to determine treatment goals in pharmacotherapy education.
Trial report in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- A 'SMART' way to determine treatment goals in pharmacotherapy education.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Trial
- What should be updated in the WHO guide to good prescribing?European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Development of Quality Indicators for the Correct Use of Electronic Medical Records in Primary Care: Modified Delphi Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Defining quality indicators for atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases in primary care, extractable from the electronic health record: a RAND-modified Delphi method.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- The development of electronic health record-extractable quality indicators for osteoporosis in primary care: A rand-modified Delphi method.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Development of quality indicators for hypertension, extractable from the electronic health record of the general practitioner: a rand-modified Delphi method.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Teaching rational prescribing in undergraduate medical education: a systematic search and review.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2023Review
- Educational Interventions for Medical Students to Improve Pharmacological Knowledge and Prescribing Skills: A Scoping Review.Perspectives on medical education · 2023Article
- Development of primary care quality indicators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using a Delphi-derived method.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2022Article
- EMDIA Case Series-Effective Medication Therapy Management (MTM) for Diabetes Type 2 Patients-A Proof of Concept Study.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- A Rapid Review of Prescribing Education Interventions.Medical science educator · 2021Review
- Patient attitudes toward and goals for MDD treatment: a survey study.Patient preference and adherence · 2019Article
- Principle of rational prescribing and deprescribing in older adults with multiple chronic conditions.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2018Review
- Neurologist-patient communication about epilepsy in the United States, Spain, and Germany.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2018Article
- Heart disease risk and self-efficacy in overweight and obese adults.The journal for nurse practitioners : JNPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimDetermining treatment goals is an important part of the treatment decision-making process, but medical students are not trained in a structural way on how to define these goals. 'SMART' criteria are widely used in non-medical professions for determining goals and may improve treatment goal setting. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of implementation of SMART criteria on medical students' ability to set treatment goals and to analyze the effects on treatment choice and monitoring.
methodsWe performed a prospective, randomized controlled minimal intervention study with one control and two intervention groups (WHO group and SMART group). Second year medical students had to complete a WHO six step treatment plan for four written case reports of patients with asthma. The treatment plans were assessed using a standard scoring sheet developed by a Delphi procedure among respiratory physicians from all eight university medical centres in the Netherlands.
resultsA total of 251 second year medical students participated. The SMART group had significantly higher scores for setting treatment goals than the WHO and control groups (68.5 % vs. 29.6 % and 30.8 %, respectively, both P < 0.001). The SMART group also had significantly better scores for treatment monitoring than the WHO and control groups (34.2 % vs. 19.3 % and 24.6 %, respectively, both P < 0.001). There were no between group differences in treatment choice. Regardless of the study group, better setting of treatment goals was associated with better treatment monitoring, an association not reported earlier.
conclusionSMART criteria improve the setting of treatment goals and treatment monitoring.
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.