Use of tests in UK primary care.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Algorithmic emergence? Epistemic in/justice in AI-directed transformations of healthcare.Frontiers in sociology · 2025
   Review
2. General practitioner gender and use of diagnostic procedures: a French cross-sectional study in training practices.BMJ open · 2022
   Article
3. Guidance for post-discharge care following acute kidney injury: an appropriateness ratings evaluation.BJGP open · 2020
   Article
4. Grey matter.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Temporal trends in use of tests in UK primary care, 2000-15: retrospective analysis of 250 million tests.2018

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as