ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2016
Perspectives of primary health care physicians on diagnosing and referring patients with apparent osteolytic lesions on plain X-ray films: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe identification and diagnosis of musculoskeletal symptoms are major challenges for primary care physicians. A lack of clinical suspicion, limited exposure, and referral of patients to nonspecialized centers can delay the management of cases, which in turn can increase morbidity and mortality. SUBJECTS AND
methodsFour different sets of X-ray films were shown to 91 primary health care physicians. The first two were normal, whereas the third and fourth showed bone lesions. Participants were asked to indicate the presence of an abnormality, the diagnosis, and the approach to referral if required.
resultsThere was a variation in the results for the first two sets of normal X-ray films. Most participants (73.6%) were able to diagnose the first case correctly. However, 73.6% of participants were unable to diagnose the second case correctly. A high percentage of participants (90.1%) were able to detect abnormalities in Cases 3 and 4, with nearly all participants indicating that they would refer patients to centers other than bone oncology centers in the western region of Saudi Arabia if they suspected bone tumors. Only 25.8% of participants were aware of these bone oncology centers.
conclusionPhysicians in many primary health care centers need practice in reading normal X-ray films to avoid unnecessary referral of patients to specialized medical centers. We recommend the development of a new system for referring patients suspected to have bone tumors to avoid a delay in the management of cases and to decrease morbidity and mortality.
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.