ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019
Measuring the Impact of an Open Web-Based Prescribing Data Analysis Service on Clinical Practice: Cohort Study on NHS England Data.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- RxTrends: An R-based Shiny Application for Visualising Open Data on Prescribed Medications in Ireland.HRB open research · 2025Article
- Automating incidence and prevalence analysis in open cohorts.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Can we measure whether asthma guidelines lead to improved care?NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2024Review
- A web tool for exploring the usage of medicines in hospitals in England.Wellcome open research · 2024Article
- Identifying Patterns of Clinical Interest in Clinicians' Treatment Preferences: Hypothesis-free Data Science Approach to Prioritizing Prescribing Outliers for Clinical Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Article
- How many medications do doctors in primary care use? An observational study of the DU90% indicator in primary care in England.BMJ open · 2021Observational
- 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 · 2020Article
- Association between gifts from pharmaceutical companies to French general practitioners and their drug prescribing patterns in 2016: retrospective study using the French Transparency in Healthcare and National Health Data System databases.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOpenPrescribing is a freely accessible service that enables any user to view and analyze the National Health Service (NHS) primary care prescribing data at the level of individual practices. This tool is intended to improve the quality, safety, and cost-effectiveness of prescribing.
objectiveWe aimed to measure the impact of OpenPrescribing being viewed on subsequent prescribing.
methodsHaving preregistered our protocol and code, we measured three different metrics of prescribing quality (mean percentile across 34 existing OpenPrescribing quality measures, available "price-per-unit" savings, and total "low-priority prescribing" spend) to see whether they changed after the viewing of Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and practice pages. We also measured whether practices whose data were viewed on OpenPrescribing differed in prescribing, prior to viewing, compared with those who were not. We used fixed-effects and between-effects linear panel regression to isolate change over time and differences between practices, respectively. We adjusted for the month of prescribing in the fixed-effects model to remove underlying trends in outcome measures.
resultsWe found a reduction in available price-per-unit savings for both practices and CCGs after their pages were viewed. The saving was greater at practice level (-£40.42 per thousand patients per month; 95% CI -54.04 to -26.81) than at CCG level (-£14.70 per thousand patients per month; 95% CI -25.56 to -3.84). We estimate a total saving since launch of £243 thosand at practice level and £1.47 million at CCG level between the feature launch and end of follow-up (August to November 2017) among practices viewed. If the observed savings from practices viewed were extrapolated to all practices, this would generate £26.8 million in annual savings for the NHS, approximately 20% of the total possible savings from this method. The other two measures were not different after CCGs or practices were viewed. Practices that were viewed had worse prescribing quality scores overall prior to viewing.
conclusionsWe found a positive impact from the use of OpenPrescribing, specifically for the class of savings opportunities that can only be identified by using this tool. Furthermore, we show that it is possible to conduct a robust analysis of the impact of such a Web-based service on clinical practice.
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.