Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29787684›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2018

Trends and variation in prescribing of low-priority treatments identified by NHS England: a cross-sectional study and interactive data tool in English primary care.

Alex J Walker, Helen J Curtis, Seb Bacon, Richard Croker, Ben Goldacre

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Suboptimal prescribing behaviour associated with clinical software design features: a retrospective cohort study in English NHS primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Article
  6. Trends and variation in unsafe prescribing of methotrexate: a cohort study in English NHS primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Medicines identified as low priority for funding: a Welsh perspective.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. An era of caution and careful planning.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. How to fund the NHS.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alex J WalkerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4932-6135
Helen J CurtisNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK.
Seb BaconNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK.
Richard CrokerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK.
Ben GoldacreNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK.
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives NHS England recently announced a consultation seeking to discourage the use of treatments it considers to be low-value. We set out to produce an interactive data resource to show savings in each NHS general practice and to assess the current use of these treatments, their change in use over time, and the extent and reasons for variation in such prescribing. Design Cross-sectional analysis. Setting English primary care. Participants English general practices. Main outcome measures We determined the cost per 1000 patients for prescribing of each of 18 treatments identified by NHS England for each month from July 2012 to June 2017, and also aggregated over the most recent year to assess total cost and variation among practices. We used mixed effects linear regression to determine factors associated with cost of prescribing. Results Spend on low-value treatments was £153.5 m in the last year, across 5.8 m prescriptions (mean, £26 per prescription). Among individual treatments, liothyronine had the highest prescribing cost at £29.6 m, followed by trimipramine (£20.2 m). Over time, the overall total number of low-value prescriptions decreased, but the cost increased, although this varied greatly between treatments. Three treatment areas increased in cost and two increased in volume, all others reduced in cost and volume. Annual practice level spending varied widely (median, £2262 per thousand patients; interquartile range £1439 to £3298). Proportion of patients over 65 was strongly associated with low-value prescribing, as was Clinical Commissioning Group. Our interactive data tool was deployed to OpenPrescribing.net where monthly updated figures and graphs can be viewed. Conclusions Prescribing of low-value treatments is extensive but varies widely by treatment, geographic area and individual practice. Despite a fall in prescription numbers, the overall cost of prescribing for low-value items has risen. Prescribing behaviour is clustered by Clinical Commissioning Group, which may represent variation in the optimisation efficiency of medicines, or in some cases access inequality.

Indexed as

Practice Patterns, Physicians'State MedicineCost SavingsCross-Sectional StudiesDrug CostsDrug PrescriptionsEnglandFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMalePrimary Health CareReferral and ConsultationRetrospective Studiesepidemiologylow-priorityNHS Englandprescribing

Identifiers

PMID29787684
PMCPMC6022888
OpenAlexW2765680414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.