ArticleBMJ open2022
Can primary care research be conducted more efficiently using routinely reported practice-level data: a cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in England?
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesConducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in primary care is challenging; recruiting patients during time-limited or remote consultations can increase selection bias and physical access to patients' notes is costly and time-consuming. We investigated barriers and facilitators to running a more efficient design.
designAn RCT aiming to reduce antibiotic prescribing among children presenting with acute cough and a respiratory tract infection (RTI) with a clinician-focused intervention, embedded at the practice level. By using aggregate level, routinely collected data for the coprimary outcomes, we removed the need to recruit individual participants.
settingPrimary care.
participantsBaseline data from general practitioner practices and interviews with individuals from Clinical Research Networks (CRNs) in England who helped recruit practices and Clinical Commission Groups (CCGs) who collected outcome data.
interventionThe intervention included: (1) explicit elicitation of parental concerns, (2) a prognostic algorithm to identify children at low risk of hospitalisation and (3) provision of a printout for carers including safety-netting advice. COPRIMARY OUTCOMES: For 0-9 years old-(1) Dispensing data for amoxicillin and macrolide antibiotics and (2) hospital admission rate for RTI.
resultsWe recruited 294 of the intended 310 practices (95%) representing 336 496 registered 0-9 years old (5% of all 0-9 years old children). Included practices were slightly larger, had slightly lower baseline prescribing rates and were located in more deprived areas reflecting the national distribution. Engagement with CCGs and their understanding of their role in this research was variable. Engagement with CRNs and installation of the intervention was straight-forward although the impact of updates to practice IT systems and lack of familiarity required extended support in some practices. Data on the coprimary outcomes were almost 100%.
conclusionsThe infrastructure for trials at the practice level using routinely collected data for primary outcomes is viable in England and should be promoted for primary care research where appropriate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11405239.
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.