ArticleFamily practice2024
The utility of the classification tools in National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence's Clinical Knowledge Summaries for primary care.
Article in Family practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundThe National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence provides a web-based resource, Clinical Knowledge Summaries (CKS), whose aim is to give evidence-based guidance for primary care practitioners and students. Included in the information it provides, are tools for the classification of conditions.
objectivesThe objective of this study was to measure the proportion and utility of the classification tools that have implications for management.
methodsEach topic on the CKS website was screened in alphabetical order for the presence of a classification tool. The linkage to management and the strength of recommendations were extracted by 2 researchers working independently. Disagreements were resolved through discussion.
resultsClassification tools were present for 35 conditions. There were 52 tools in all. A strong recommendation for their use was made in 37% while for a sizeable minority, 46%, the strength of recommendation was uncertain. There was a relation between strength of recommendation and linkage: for the stronger recommendation, 76% had some form of implication for management.
conclusionRelevance is an important feature of a guideline for general practitioners (GPs). Given that nearly half its tools have no utility in guiding management, CKS may need to consider whether extraneous information should be disposed of or retained.
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.