SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017
Walk-in clinics versus physician offices and emergency rooms for urgent care and chronic disease management.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Nudge strategies to improve healthcare providers' implementation of evidence-based guidelines, policies and practices: a systematic review of trials included within Cochrane systematic reviews.Implementation science : IS · 2020Pooled it
- Developing a new clinical governance framework for chronic diseases in primary care: an umbrella review.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Development of a Patient-Reported Experience Measure Tool for Ambulatory Patients With Acute Unexpected Needs: The APEX Questionnaire.Journal of patient experience · 2024Article
- Changes in low-acuity patient volume in an emergency department after launching a walk-in clinic.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2023Article
- Optimization of Patient Flow in Urgent Care Centers Using a Digital Tool for Recording Patient Symptoms and History: Simulation Study.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- A Value-Based Comparison of the Management of Ambulatory Respiratory Diseases in Walk-in Clinics, Primary Care Practices, and Emergency Departments: Protocol for a Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- A Review of HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Streamlining Strategies.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2020Review
- Patients' Utilization and Perception of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Symptom Assessment and Advice Technology in a British Primary Care Waiting Room: Exploratory Pilot Study.JMIR human factors · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWalk-in clinics are growing in popularity around the world as a substitute for traditional medical care delivered in physician offices and emergency rooms, but their clinical efficacy is unclear.
objectivesTo assess the quality of care and patient satisfaction of walk-in clinics compared to that of traditional physician offices and emergency rooms for people who present with basic medical complaints for either acute or chronic issues. SEARCH
methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases, and two trials registers on 22 March 2016 together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We applied no restrictions on language, publication type, or publication year. SELECTION CRITERIA: Study design: randomized trials, non-randomized trials, and controlled before-after studies. POPULATION: standalone physical clinics not requiring advance appointments or registration, that provided basic medical care without expectation of follow-up. Comparisons: traditional primary care practices or emergency rooms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. MAIN
resultsThe literature search identified 6587 citations, of which we considered 65 to be potentially relevant. We reviewed the abstracts of all 65 potentially relevant studies and retrieved the full texts of 12 articles thought to fit our study criteria. However, following independent author assessment of the full texts, we excluded all 12 articles. AUTHORS'
conclusionsControlled trial evidence about the mortality, morbidity, quality of care, and patient satisfaction of walk-in clinics is currently not available.
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.