Trial reportJAMA psychiatry2018
Effect of Peer Comparison Letters for High-Volume Primary Care Prescribers of Quetiapine in Older and Disabled Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA psychiatry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 48 papers, 5 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.
The Effect of Informative Letters on the Prescription and Receipt of Seroquel
A Pragmatic Randomized-controlled Trial of a Multi-pronged Electronic Health Record-based Clinical Decision Support Tool to Reduce Low-value Antipsychotic Prescriptions Among Older Adults With Alzheimer's and Related Dementias
Who cites it
48 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 104 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of social norms messaging approaches for improving health behaviours in developed countries.Nature human behaviour · 2025Pooled it
- Interventions to Address Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing for Older Primary Care Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- The Impact of Choosing Wisely Interventions on Low-Value Medical Services: A Systematic Review.The Milbank quarterly · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The effectiveness of behavioral economics-informed interventions on physician behavioral change: A systematic literature review.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- Feasibility of a Low-Intensity Intervention to Influence Antibiotic Prescribing Rates Use in Outpatient Settings: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Trial
- Government Direct-to-Consumer Education to Reduce Prescription Opioid Use: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Physician Antipsychotic Overprescribing Letters and Cognitive, Behavioral, and Physical Health Outcomes Among People With Dementia: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Peer Comparison or Guideline-Based Feedback and Postsurgery Opioid Prescriptions: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA health forum · 2024Trial
- Assessing a behavioral nudge on healthcare leaders' intentions to implement evidence-based practices.PloS one · 2024Trial
- Effect of a Peer Comparison and Educational Intervention on Medical Test Conversation Quality: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- Effectiveness of Behaviorally Informed Letters on Health Insurance Marketplace Enrollment: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA health forum · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Effect of a Social Norm Email Feedback Program on the Unnecessary Prescription of Nimodipine in Ambulatory Care of Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2020Trial
- Association of Quetiapine Overuse Letters With Prescribing by Physician Peers of Targeted Recipients: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA psychiatry · 2019Trial
- Review
- Low-Cost, High-Volume Health Services Contribute the Most to Unnecessary Health Spending due to Low-Value Care in Japan.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Trends in antipsychotic prescribing among community-dwelling older adults with dementia, 2010-2018.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of different de-implementation strategies in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ medicine · 2025Article
- Appropriateness of Care Measures: A Novel Approach to Quality.Annals of vascular surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Antipsychotic agents, such as quetiapine fumarate, are frequently overprescribed for indications not supported by clinical evidence, potentially causing harm. Objective: To investigate if peer comparison letters targeting high-volume primary care prescribers of quetiapine meaningfully reduce their prescribing. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial (intent to treat) conducted from 2015 to 2017 of prescribers and their patients nationwide in the Medicare program. The trial targeted the 5055 highest-volume primary care prescribers of quetiapine in 2013 and 2014 (approximately 5% of all primary care prescribers of quetiapine). Interventions: Prescribers were randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive a placebo letter or 3 peer comparison letters stating that their quetiapine prescribing was high relative to their peers and was under review by Medicare. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the total quetiapine days supplied by prescribers from the intervention start to 9 months. Secondary outcomes included quetiapine receipt from all prescribers by baseline patients, quetiapine receipt by patients with low-value or guideline-concordant indications for therapy, mortality, and hospital use. In exploratory analyses, the study followed outcomes to 2 years. Results: Of the 5055 prescribers, 231 (4.6%) were general practitioners, 2428 (48.0%) were in family medicine, and 2396 (47.4%) were in internal medicine; 4155 (82.2%) were male. All were included in the analyses. Over 9 months, the treatment arm supplied 11.1% fewer quetiapine days per prescriber vs the control arm (2456 vs 2864 days; percentage difference, 11.1% fewer days; 95% CI, -13.1% to -9.2% days; P < .001; adjusted difference, -319 days; 95% CI, -374 to -263 days; P < .001), which persisted through 2 years (15.6% fewer days; 95% CI, -18.1% to -13.0%; P < .001). At the patient level, individuals in the treatment arm received 3.9% (95% CI, -5.0% to -2.9%; P < .001) fewer days of quetiapine from all prescribers over 9 months, with a larger decrease among patients with low-value vs guideline-concordant indications (-5.9% [95% CI, -8.0% to -3.9%] vs -2.4% [95% CI, -4.0% to -0.9%], P = .01 for test that effects were equal for both patient groups). There was no evidence of substitution to other antipsychotics, and 9-month mortality and hospital use were similar between the treatment vs control arms. Conclusions and Relevance: Peer comparison letters caused substantial and durable reductions in quetiapine prescribing, with no evidence of negative effects on patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02467933.
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.