Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31235528›Full record

ArticleBMJ evidence-based medicine2020

Content analysis of clinical questions from Australian general practice which are prioritised for answering: identifying common question types and perceived knowledge gaps.

Danielle Marie Muscat, Pinika Patel, Sharon Reid, Tammy Hoffmann, Loai Albarqouni, Lyndal Trevena

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Danielle Marie MuscatSydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6106-6298
Pinika PatelASK-GP Centre for Research Excellence, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sharon ReidASK-GP Centre for Research Excellence, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Tammy HoffmannASK-GP Centre for Research Excellence, Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Loai AlbarqouniASK-GP Centre for Research Excellence, Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Lyndal TrevenaASK-GP Centre for Research Excellence, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Perceived knowledge gaps in general practice are not well documented but must be understood to ensure relevant and timely evidence for busy general practitioners (GPs) which reflects their diverse and changing needs. The aim of this study was to classify the types of questions submitted by Australian GPs to an evidence-based practice information service using established and inductive coding systems. We analysed 126 clinical questions submitted by 53 Australian GPs over a 1.5-year period. Questions were coded using the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-2 PLUS) and Ely and colleagues' generic questions taxonomy by two independent coders. Inductive qualitative content analysis was also used to identify perceived knowledge gaps. Treatment (71%), diagnosis (15%) and epidemiology (9%) were the most common categories of questions. Using the ICPC-2 classification, questions were most commonly coded to the endocrine/metabolic and nutritional chapter heading, followed by general and unspecified, digestive and musculoskeletal. Seventy per cent of all questions related to the need to stay up-to-date with the evidence, or be informed about new tests or treatments (including complementary and alternative therapies). These findings suggest that current guideline formats for common clinical problems may not meet the knowledge demands of GPs and there is gap in access to evidence updates on new tests, treatments and complementary and alternative therapies. Better systems for 'pulling' real-time questions from GPs could better inform the 'push' of more relevant and timely evidence for use in the clinical encounter.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEvidence-Based MedicineGeneral PracticeInformation ServicesAustraliaHumansSurveys and Questionnairesgeneral medicineprimary carequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID31235528
PMCPMC7029252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.