Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28667208›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2017

Assessment of the effect of an Interactive Dynamic Referral Interface (IDRI) on the quality of referral letters from general practitioners to gastroenterologists: a randomised cross-over vignette trial.

Sigrun Losada Eskeland, Cathrine Brunborg, Corina Silvia Rueegg, Lars Aabakken, Thomas de Lange

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Decision Support Systems for Healthcare Referral Strategies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Electronic checklists improve referral letters in gastroenterology: a randomized vignette survey.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2018
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Defining a theoretical framework for a quality referral at the primary-secondary care interface: a systematic scoping review with qualitative content analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sigrun Losada EskelandDepartment of Medical Research, Bærum Hospital, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Drammen, Norway.
Cathrine BrunborgDepartment of Biostatistics, Oslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Corina Silvia RueeggDepartment of Biostatistics, Oslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Lars AabakkenDepartment of Transplantation Medicine, Section of GI Endoscopy, Division of Surgery, Inflammatory Medicine and Transplantation, Oslo University Hospital Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway.
Thomas de LangeDepartment of Medicine, Bærum Hospital, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Drammen, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe evaluated whether interactive, electronic, dynamic, diagnose-specific checklists improve the quality of referral letters in gastroenterology and assessed the general practitioners' (GPs') acceptance of the checklists.

designRandomised cross-over vignette trial.

settingPrimary care in Norway.

participants25 GPs.

interventionThe GPs participated in the trial and were asked to refer eight clinical vignettes in an internet-based electronic health record simulator. A referral support, consisting of dynamic diagnose-specific checklists, was created for the generation of referral letters to gastroenterologists. The GPs were randomised to refer the eight vignettes with or without the checklists. After a minimum of 3 months, they repeated the referral process with the alternative method.

main outcome measuresDifference in quality of the referral letters between referrals with and without checklists, measured with an objective Thirty Point Score (TPS).Difference in variance in the quality of the referral letters and GPs' acceptance of the electronic dynamic user interface.

resultsThe mean TPS was 15.2 (95% CI 13.2 to 16.3) and 22.0 (95% CI 20.6 to 22.8) comparing referrals without and with checklist assistance (p<0.001), respectively. The coefficient of variance was 23.3% for the checklist group and 39.6% for the non-checklist group. Two-thirds (16/24) of the GPs thought they had included more relevant information in the referrals with checklists, and considered implementing this type of checklists in their clinical practices, if available.

conclusionsDynamic, diagnose-specific checklists improved the quality of referral letters significantly and reduced the variance of the TPS, indicating a more uniform quality when checklists were used. The GPs were generally positive to the checklists.

Indexed as

Family PracticeGastroenterologyAdultChecklistCorrespondence as TopicCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementReferral and ConsultationcommunicationGeneral practiceHealth & safetyreferral letters

Identifiers

PMID28667208
PMCPMC5734248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.