Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29635304›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2018

Electronic checklists improve referral letters in gastroenterology: a randomized vignette survey.

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

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sigrun Losada EskelandDepartment of Medical Research, Bærum Hospital, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, PO Box 800, Drammen, Norway.
Corina Silvia RueeggOslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Biostatistics, University of Oslo, PO Box 1122 Blindern, Oslo, Norway.
Cathrine BrunborgOslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Biostatistics, University of Oslo, PO Box 1122 Blindern, Oslo, Norway.
Lars AabakkenInstitute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, PO Box 1171 Blindern, Oslo, Norway.
Thomas de LangeInstitute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, PO Box 1171 Blindern, Oslo, Norway.
University of Oslo · NOVestre Viken Hospital Trust · NOOslo University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveInvestigate whether gastroenterologists rate the quality of referral letters higher if electronic dynamic checklist items are added to a standard free-text referral letter. Assess how this affects the gastroenterologists' assessment of the patient's need for healthcare and the agreement between their assessments.

designRandomized vignette study.

settingNorwegian primary gastroenterology services.

participantsThirty-two Norwegian gastroenterologists.

interventionBetween June 2015 and January 2016, participants were recruited through an open invitation to all members of the Norwegian Society of Gastroenterology. They were asked to rate 16 referral letters (vignettes) in a web interface: eight letters in free text following a general template and eight letters based on a general referral template combined with diagnosis-specific checklist items. The study was completed in two subsequent rounds ≥3 months apart.

main outcome measuresQuality of referral letters assessed on a rating scale from 0 to 10. Agreement in the referral assessment and accuracy of the selection of correct preliminary diagnosis and appropriate work-up.

resultsThe mean quality assesses on the rating scale was 7.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.8-7.2) for all letters combined (n = 511), 6.5(CI 6.2-6.8) for the free-text referrals (n = 256) and 7.5(CI 7.3-7.7) for the checklist referrals (n = 255) (P < 0.001, paired t-test). No difference was observed in the triage of the patients, but fewer gastroenterologists felt the need to collect additional information about the patients in the checklist group.

conclusionChecklist items may ease the assessment of the referrals for gastroenterologists. We were not able to show that checklists significantly influence the management of patients.

Indexed as

AdultAgedChecklistCross-Over StudiesFemaleGastroenterologistsGastrointestinal DiseasesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayQuality ImprovementReferral and ConsultationSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID29635304
PMCPMC6047431
OpenAlexW2795907233

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.