Observational studyAtencion primaria
[Primary care evaluation of the hypertensive patient management in specialized care after derivation (DERIVA-2 Study)].
Observational study in Atencion primaria. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo know the opinion/evaluation of the primary care physicians (PCPH) of the received information about patients that were attended in specialized care (SC).
designCross-sectional study. LOCATION: Performed nationwide in primary care centers.
participantsResearchers from the primary care network.
methodsWe used the SEH-LELHA derivation criteria guidelines, plus an ad hoc survey that included demographic and anthropometric data, blood pressure levels, and the main reason for derivation to SC at the baseline and final (post-derivation) visit. In addition, time deployed for the study of every patient, changes in diagnosis and treatment, type of follow-up, issues throughout the derivation process and assessment of the medical referred to the PCPH were evaluated.
resultsWith participation of 578 researchers from primary, the study included 1715 patients aged 60.7±13.3years, 62.7% male. Patients were taking 2.3±1.2 (range 0-10) antihypertensive drugs pre-referral and 2.5±1.2 (0-9) after derivation. Blood pressure levels changed from 166±21.6 /97.7±12.6mmHg to 143±14.4 /85.5±10.5mmHg. The number of controlled patients (BP<140 and <90mmHg) increased from 5.8% to 32.2%. Time between pre- and post-derivation visit was 72±64days (median 57days, IQ26-99). The PCPH received a medical report in 80.3% of cases, 76.9% with an explanation of the results of the complementary tests, 75.8% with additional information or a reasoning of treatment and in 71% of cases information about the patient future management. 63% of PCPH were fully agreed with the management of the specialist, 29% agree and 2% strongly disagree. The derivation was evaluated as effective or very effective in 86% of patients and no effective in 9%.
conclusionsCommunication between AE and SC in HTA is valued satisfactorily by MAP. However there is still room for improvement in the process.
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.