ArticleThe Australian journal of rural health2017
Do children with cystic fibrosis receiving outreach care have poorer clinical outcomes than those treated at a specialist cystic fibrosis centre?
Article in The Australian journal of rural health, 2017. 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.
- Influences of environmental exposures on individuals living with cystic fibrosis.Expert review of respiratory medicine · 2020Review
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
introductionAlthough cystic fibrosis (CF) centre care is generally considered ideal, children living in regional Australia receive outreach care supported by the academic CF centres.
methodsThis is a retrospective database review of children with CF treated at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne and its outreach clinics in Albury (Victoria), and Tasmania. The aim was to compare the outcomes of children with CF managed at an academic centre with that of outreach care, using lung function, nutritional status and Pseudomonas aeruginosa colonisation. Three models of care, namely CF centre care, Shared care and predominantly Local care, were compared, based on the level of involvement of CF centre multidisciplinary team. In our analyses, we controlled for potential confounders, such as socio-economic status and the degree of remoteness, to determine its effect on the outcome measures.
resultsThere was no difference in lung function, i.e. forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV
conclusionOutcomes in children with CF in regional and remote areas receiving outreach care supported by an academic CF centre were no different from children receiving CF centre care.
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.