ArticleBJGP open2021
Understanding GPs' views and experiences of using clinical prediction rules in the management of respiratory infections: a qualitative study.
Article in BJGP open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving healthcare professionals' interactions with patients to tackle antimicrobial resistance: a systematic review of interventions, barriers, and facilitators.Frontiers in public health · 2024Pooled it
- Impact of a diagnostic strategy for appendicitis in children with acute abdominal pain in primary care: study protocol for a hybrid type 1 cluster randomised controlled trial.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2026Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRespiratory tract infections (RTIs) account for 60% of antibiotic prescribing in primary care. Several clinical prediction rules (CPRs) have been developed to help reduce unnecessary prescribing for RTIs, but there is a lack of studies exploring whether or how these CPRs are being used in UK general practice.
aimTo explore UK GPs' views and experiences with regards to RTI CPRs, and to identify barriers and facilitators to their use in practice. DESIGN &
settingA qualitative analysis of interviews with in-hours GPs working in the South and South West of England.
methodSemi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were conducted, digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using an inductive thematic approach. Patient and public involvement representatives contributed to study design and interpretation of findings.
resultsThirty-two GPs were interviewed. Some CPRs were more commonly used than others. Participants used CPRs to facilitate patient-clinician discussion, confirm and support their decision, and document the consultation. GPs also highlighted concerns including lack of time, inability of CPRs to incorporate patient complexity, a shift in focus from the patient during consultations, and limited use in remote consultation (during the COVID-19 pandemic).
conclusionThis study highlights the need for user-friendly CPRs that are readily integrated into computer systems, and easily embedded into routine practice to complement clinical decision-making. Existing CPRs need to be validated for other populations where demographics and clinical characteristics may differ, as well different settings including remote consultations and self-assessment.
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.