ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2022
Feedback of actionable individual patient prescription data to improve asthma prescribing: pragmatic cluster randomised trial in 233 UK general practices.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2022. 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of interactive dashboards to optimize prescribing in general practice: a systematic review.Family practice · 2025Pooled it
- Asthma clinical decision support systems in primary care: an updated scoping review of implementation.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2026Article
- Design, implementation, and inferential issues associated with clinical trials that rely on data in electronic medical records: a narrative review.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPotentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) of asthma bronchodilator inhalers is associated with increased morbidity and mortality.
aimTo evaluate the effectiveness of feedback on the PIP of bronchodilator inhalers. DESIGN AND
settingPragmatic cluster randomised trial involving 235 of 244 (96.3%) GP practices in one Scottish health board.
methodPractices were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to individualised feedback (including visualised medication histories for each patient and action-oriented messages) on PIP of bronchodilator inhalers from prescription data; feedback reports were sent in July 2015, February 2016, and August 2016. Controls were sent feedback on an unrelated subject. The primary outcome was the change in the mean number of patients per practice with PIP of bronchodilator inhalers from the baseline period (August 2014-July 2015) until the post-feedback period (February 2016-January 2017), identified through a composite of five individual measures using prescription data.
resultsIn the analysis of the primary outcome, the mean number of patients with PIP of bronchodilator inhalers fell in the 118 practices that were sent feedback from 21.8 per practice to 17.7 per practice. Numbers fell marginally in the 115 control practices, from 20.5 per practice to 20.2 per practice, with a statistically significant difference between the two groups. There were 3.7 fewer patients per practice with PIP of bronchodilator inhalers in the intervention practices versus the control practices (95% confidence interval = -5.3 to -2.0).
conclusionIndividualised feedback of PIP of asthma bronchodilators that included background information, visualised medication histories for each patient, and action-oriented messages was effective at reducing the number of patients exposed to excess or unsafe prescribing of bronchodilator inhalers.
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.