Trial reportPloS one2019
Primary care management for patients receiving long-term antithrombotic treatment: A cluster-randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions to improve adherence to clinical practice guidelines when treating cardiovascular disease: a systematic review.Irish journal of medical science · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical service organisation for adults with atrial fibrillation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Differences in the quality of oral anticoagulation therapy with vitamin K antagonists in German GP practices - results of the cluster-randomized PICANT trial (Primary Care Management for Optimized Antithrombotic Treatment).BMC health services research · 2019Trial
- Streamlining atrial fibrillation ablation management using a digitization solution.European heart journal. Digital health · 2024Article
- Characterizing atrial fibrillation symptom improvement following de novo catheter ablation.European journal of cardiovascular nursing · 2024Article
- Returning Cardiac Rhythm Data to Patients: Opportunities and Challenges.Cardiac electrophysiology clinics · 2021Review
- Effect of involving certified healthcare assistants in primary care in Germany: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine whether applying case management in general practices reduces thromboembolic events requiring hospitalization and major bleeding events (combined primary outcome). Secondary endpoints were mortality, frequency and duration of hospitalization, severe treatment interactions, adverse events, quality of anticoagulation, health-related quality of life and intervention costs, patients' assessment of chronic illness care, self-reported adherence to medication, GP and HCA knowledge, patient knowledge and satisfaction with shared decision-making.
methodsCluster-randomized controlled trial undertaken at 52 general practices in Germany with adult patients with a long-term indication for oral anticoagulation. The complex intervention included training for healthcare assistants, information and quality circles for general practitioners and 24 months of case management for patients. Assessment was after 12 and 24 months. The intention-to-treat population included all randomized practices and patients, while the per-protocol analysis included only those that received treatment without major protocol violations.
resultsThe mean (SD) age of the 736 patients was 73.5 (9.4) years and 597 (81.1%) had atrial fibrillation. After 24 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 40 (11.0%) intervention and 48 (12.9%) control patients (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25; P = .37). Patients' perceived quality of care, their knowledge, and HCAs' knowledge, had improved significantly at 24 months. The other secondary endpoints did not differ between groups. In the intervention group, hospital admissions were significantly reduced in patients that received treatment without major protocol deviations.
conclusionsEven though the main outcomes did not differ significantly, the intervention appears to have positively influenced several process parameters under 'real-world conditions'.
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.