ArticleBMC family practice2016
Evaluating the scripts and thresholds of general practitioners for diagnosing heart failure in elderly people.
Article in BMC family 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiple diagnostic algorithms for heart failure exist. However, it is unclear whether these algorithms are incorporated in the 'scripts' clinicians use in every day practice. Scripts are networks of organised knowledge that are acquired and accumulated during clinical training and are refined with each clinical encounter. This study was conducted to evaluate the scripts and thresholds that GPs use to diagnose heart failure in patients aged 75 years and older.
methodsThe scripts and thresholds of 130 Belgian GPs in training and 63 experienced trainers were compared using an online questionnaire based on the same principles as the script concordance test. Two major cases with an open question and 19 minor cases with closed questions were presented. For the minor cases, all of the respondents were asked to assign a diagnostic power to individual cues. Based on these powers, a diagnostic threshold was calculated for each respondent for the two major cases.
resultsThe trainers and trainees used the same scripts to diagnose heart failure in the two major cases. Only ~50 % of the participants used natriuretic peptides in their scripts, although they judged it as the most powerful marker to demonstrate or exclude heart failure. The power that respondents gave to several cues differed significantly according to the context in which these cues were presented. In general, the average exclusive power of different cues was lower than the demonstrative power of the cues. There was no difference in diagnostic threshold between the trainers and trainees.
conclusionYoung, inexperienced GPs used the same scripts as older, more experienced GPs. In general, technical investigations were less frequently queried, compared to elements of the medical history and the clinical examination. The clinical context had a strong impact on the diagnostic power that was assigned to different factors.
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.