ArticleIranian journal of otorhinolaryngology2019
Quality of Referral Letters Written by Family Physicians to Otologists -A Peer Assessment.
Article in Iranian journal of otorhinolaryngology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-specific variables predicting triage outcomes of ear, nose, throat referrals from primary care for dysphonia.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Defining a theoretical framework for a quality referral at the primary-secondary care interface: a systematic scoping review with qualitative content analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Assessment of formats and completeness of paper-based referral letters among urban hospitals in Rwanda: a retrospective baseline study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOtolaryngology is a field with a high referral rate; however, there is a dearth of research on the quality of referral letters written in this field. This study was carried out to explicitly assess the quality of referral letters, more specifically in the field of otology. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo otologists assessed referral letters written by general practitioners or primary care physicians working as family physicians. They were asked to make independent assessment on different variables related to the quality of referral letters and their appropriateness. A "qualified referral letter" in the current study is defined as a letter with standard items, including, description of chief complaint, description of associated symptoms, relevant physical findings, past medical history, drug history, family history, and reasons for referral.
resultsA total of 1000 referral letters written by 652 primary care physicians were investigated in the current study. The obtained results indicated that 74% of referral letters to otologists contained inadequate information regarding various items in the referral letters. Symptoms, diagnosis, and signs were only reported in 28.3%, 28.9%, and 3.6% of the letters, respectively. The findings showed that most common reasons for referrals were uncertainty in diagnosis (52.4%), persistence of the patient (32.6%), and failed therapy (32%). With regards to case-specific conditions, the highest referral rates were related to external otitis, otitis media with effusion, and acute otitis media.
conclusionAccording to the obtained results of the current study, the content of referral letters were insufficient or inappropriate. Therefore, it is recommended to improve otolaryngology syllabus and provide suitable courses for undergraduate students in order to become familiar with the importance of referral letter writing.
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.