Observational studyAtencion primaria2017
[Analysis of an intervention to improve health outcomes in acute exacerbations of COPD in primary care].
Observational study in Atencion primaria, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Financial incentives and information provision for post-pandemic primary care quality recovery: a longitudinal study in Catalonia.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Information provision and financial incentives in Catalonia's public primary care (2010-2019): an interrupted time series analysis.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the impact of an intervention by Primary Care (PC) professionals of a Health District on the clinical outcomes for treating COPD exacerbations using a process and outcome indicators analysis (clinical audit).
designObservational, retrospective and prospective analysis cross-sectional audit of clinical practice
settingMalaga-Guadalhorce Sanitary District (DSMG).
participantsPatients with COPD exacerbations treated by the extra-hospital emergency services (n=523; 21% losses).
interventionsProfessional training in the usual clinical practice and inclusion of process indicators of COPD targets in relation to incentives. PRINCIPAL MEASUREMENTS: Comparison of external audit results (process and outcomes variables) from medical records and Health Outcomes (exacerbations, admissions). Variable response: Difference in exacerbations and admissions in 2 periods analysed. Bivariate and multivariate analysis.
resultsMean age was 75 (±9.3), 63.7% males with a BMI of 29.4 (±7.1), and 21% active smokers. Mean FEV1, 48.2% (±18.7). Mean exacerbations in the first period, 2.86 (±2.29) and in the second 1.36 (±1.56) (P<.001). Mean hospital admissions in the first and second period, 0.56 (±0.94) and 0.31 (±0.66) (P<.001), respectively. The decrease in the number of exacerbations was directly associated with having ≥2 exacerbations in the first period, reviewed in Primary Care, and inversely with heart failure and with having ≥2 exacerbations in the second period (R2=0.28; P<.001)
conclusionsThe number of exacerbations and admissions decreased significantly in both periods assessed. However, the evaluated process indicators did not improve. Prospective intervention studies are necessary to establish the possible causal relationship.
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.