Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35658832›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2022

Identifying and prioritizing do-not-do recommendations in Dutch primary care.

Simone A van Dulmen, Ngoc Hue Tran, Tjerk Wiersma, Eva W Verkerk, Jasmine Cl Messaoudi, Jako S Burgers, Rudolf B Kool

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Simone A van DulmenRadboud university medical center, Radboud Institute for Health Science, IQ healthcare, PO Box 9101 (160), 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Simone.vandulmen@radboudumc.nl.
Ngoc Hue TranRadboud university medical center, Radboud Institute for Health Science, IQ healthcare, PO Box 9101 (160), 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Tjerk WiersmaDutch College of General Practitioners, Mercatorlaan 1200, 3528 BL, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Eva W VerkerkRadboud university medical center, Radboud Institute for Health Science, IQ healthcare, PO Box 9101 (160), 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Jasmine Cl MessaoudiRadboud university medical center, Radboud Institute for Health Science, IQ healthcare, PO Box 9101 (160), 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Jako S BurgersDutch College of General Practitioners, Mercatorlaan 1200, 3528 BL, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Rudolf B KoolRadboud university medical center, Radboud Institute for Health Science, IQ healthcare, PO Box 9101 (160), 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Radboud University Medical Center · NLDutch College of General Practitioners · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow-value care provides minimal or no benefit for the patient, wastes resources, and can cause harm. Explicit do-not-do recommendations in clinical guidelines are a first step in reducing low-value care. The aim of this study was to identify and prioritize do-not-do recommendations in general practice guidelines with priority for implementation.

methodsWe used a mixed method design in Dutch primary care. First, we identified do-not-do recommendations through a systematic assessment of 92 Dutch guidelines for general practitioners (GPs), resulting in 385 do-not-do recommendations. Second, we selected 146 recommendations addressing high prevalent conditions. Third, a random sample of 5000 Dutch GPs was invited for an online survey to prioritize recommendations based on the prevalence of the condition and low-value care practice, potential harm, and potential cost reduction on a scale from 1 to 5/6. Total scores could range from 4 to 22. Recommendations with a median score > 12 were included. In total, 440 GPs completed the survey.

resultsThe selection process led to 30 prioritised recommendations. These covered drug treatments (n = 12), diagnostics (n = 10), referral to other healthcare professions (n = 5), and non-drug treatment (n = 3).

conclusionDutch clinical guidelines include many do-not-do recommendations that are perceived as highly relevant by the GPs. The list of 30 high-priority do-not-do recommendations can be used to raise awareness of low-value care among GPs. As the recommendations are supported with the latest evidence from international studies, primary healthcare professionals and policy makers worldwide can use the list for further validating the list in their local context and designing strategies to reduce low-value care.

Indexed as

General PracticeGeneral PractitionersHumansPrimary Health CareReferral and ConsultationSurveys and QuestionnairesClinical guidelinesDe-implementationFamily practiceGeneral practitionersLow-value careNetherlandsPrimary health care

Identifiers

PMID35658832
PMCPMC9164383
OpenAlexW4281692892

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.