ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2019
The French Society of Internal Medicine's Top-5 List of Recommendations: a National Web-Based Survey.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Geriatric Choosing Wisely choice of recommendations in France: a pragmatic approach based on clinical audits.BMC geriatrics · 2021Article
- Potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults with advanced chronic kidney disease.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe international project "Choosing Wisely" aims to target unnecessary and potentially harmful examinations and treatments.
objectiveTo define the French Internal Medicine Top-5 list.
designBased on a review of existing Top-5 lists and personal experience, a working group of the French National Society of Internal Medicine selected 27 diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. They were submitted through a national web-based survey to French internists who rated from 1 to 5 the perceived frequency, uselessness, and risk of each procedure. A composite score was calculated as the unweighted addition of the three scores.
participantsFour hundred thirty internists answered the web-based survey (14% of all French internists including residents). All the French regions and status of the profession were represented. KEY
resultsFor the 27 submitted procedures, the mean score (± SD) was 3.25 (± 0.48) for frequency, 3.10 (± 0.43) for uselessness, and 2.63 (± 0.84) for risk. The Top-5 list obtained with the composite score was as follows: 1. Do not prescribe long-term treatment with proton pump inhibitors without regular reevaluation of the indication 2. Do not administer preventive treatments (e.g., for dyslipidemia, hypertension…) in elderly people with dementia when potential risks outweigh the benefits 3. Do not administer hypnotic medications as first-line treatment for insomnia 4. Do not treat with an anticoagulant for more than 3 months a patient with a first venous thromboembolism occurring in the setting of a major transient risk factor 5. Do not screen for Lyme disease without an exposure history or related clinical examination findings We found that the composite score was strongly correlated to the risk score (r
conclusionsThis Top-5 list provides an opportunity to discuss appropriate use of health care practices in internal medicine.
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.