ArticleClinical epidemiology2022
The Doctors' Effect on Patients' Physical Health Outcomes Beyond the Intervention: A Methodological Review.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges for implementing generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) into clinical healthcare.Internal medicine journal · 2025Review
- Article
- Qualitative Study of Medical Doctors on Their Experiences and Opinions of the Characteristics of Exceptionally Good Doctors.Advances in medical education and practice · 2022Article
- Is There a Doctors' Effect on Patients' Physical Health, Beyond the Intervention and All Known Factors? A Systematic Review.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2022Review
- Characteristics of Exceptionally Good Doctors: A Protocol for a Cross-Sectional Survey of Adults.Patient related outcome measures · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Previous research suggests that when a treatment is delivered, patients' outcomes may vary systematically by medical practitioner. Objective: To conduct a methodological review of studies reporting on the effect of doctors on patients' physical health outcomes and to provide recommendations on how this effect could be measured and reported in a consistent and appropriate way. Methods: The data source was 79 included studies and randomized controlled trials from a systematic review of doctors' effects on patients' physical health. We qualitatively assessed the studies and summarized how the doctors' effect was measured and reported. Results: The doctors' effects on patients' physical health outcomes were reported as fixed effects, identifying high and low outliers, or random effects, which estimate the variation in patient health outcomes due to the doctor after accounting for all available variables via the intra-class correlation coefficient. Multivariable multilevel regression is commonly used to adjust for patient risk, doctor experience and other demographics, and also to account for the clustering effect of hospitals in estimating both fixed and random effects. Conclusion: This methodological review identified inconsistencies in how the doctor's effect on patients' physical health outcomes is measured and reported. For grading doctors from worst to best performances and estimating random effects, specific recommendations are given along with the specific data points to report.
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.