Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32176711›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2020

Representation of patients with a migration background in studies on antithrombotic treatment. An analysis of recruitment data from a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Karola Mergenthal, Andrea Siebenhofer, Lisa-R Ulrich, Corina Guethlin, Ferdinand M Gerlach, Juliana J Petersen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Migrants Living in the United Kingdom and Their Perceptions of Participation in Health Research: A Mixed-Methods Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
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.

Karola MergenthalInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Andrea SiebenhoferInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6980-2103
Lisa-R UlrichInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Corina GuethlinInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Ferdinand M GerlachInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Juliana J PetersenInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe health status, health awareness and health behavior of persons with a migration background often differ from the autochthonous population. Little is known about the proportion of patients with a migration background (PMB) that participate in primary care studies on oral antithrombotic treatment (OAT) in Germany, and whether the quality of their antithrombotic care differs from patients without a migration background. The aim of this paper was to use the results of a cluster-randomized controlled trial (PICANT) to determine the proportion of PMB at different stages of recruitment, and to compare the results in terms of sociodemographic characteristics and antithrombotic treatment.

methodsThis study used screening and baseline data from the PICANT trial on oral anticoagulation management in GP practices. For this analysis, we determined the proportion of PMB during the recruitment period at stage 1 (screening of potentially eligible patients), stage 2 (eligible patients invited to participate in the trial), and stage 3 (assessment of baseline characteristics of patients participating in the PICANT trial). In addition, we compared patients in terms of sociodemographic characteristics and quality of anticoagulant treatment. Statistical analysis comprised descriptive and bivariate analyses.

resultsThe proportion of PMB at each recruitment stage declined from 9.1% at stage 1 to 7.9% at stage 2 and 7.3% at stage 3). A lack of German language skills led to the exclusion of half the otherwise eligible PMB. At stages 1 and 3, PMB were younger (stage 1: 70.7 vs. 75.0 years, p<0.001; stage 3: 70.2 vs. 73.5 years, p = 0.013), but did not differ in terms of gender. The quality of their anticoagulant care was comparable (100.0% vs. 99.1% were receiving appropriate OAT, 94.4% vs. 95.7% took phenprocoumon, or warfarin, and the most recent INR measurement of 60.8% vs. 69.3% was within their individual INR range).

conclusionsIn the potentially eligible population and among participants at baseline, the quality of anticoagulant care was high in all groups of patients, which is reassuring. To enable the inclusion of more PMB, future primary care research on OAT in Germany should address how best to overcome language barriers. This will be challenging, particularly because the heterogeneity of PMB means the resulting sample sizes for each specific language group are small.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN41847489.

Indexed as

Human MigrationPatient SelectionAgedAnticoagulantsDemographyFemaleFibrinolytic AgentsHumansMaleAnticoagulantsFibrinolytic Agents

Identifiers

PMID32176711
PMCPMC7075549

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.