Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37788942›Full record

ArticleAnnals of family medicine2023

Improving the Reporting of Primary Care Research: Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care-the CRISP Statement.

William R Phillips, Elizabeth Sturgiss, Paul Glasziou, Tim C Olde Hartman, Aaron M Orkin, Pallavi Prathivadi, Joanne Reeve, Grant M Russell, Chris van Weel

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of family medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
22.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Enhancing health research teams with CONTEXTperts.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

William R PhillipsUniversity of Washington, Seattle, Washington wphllps@uw.edu.
Elizabeth SturgissSchool of Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Paul GlasziouBond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia.
Tim C Olde HartmanRadboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Aaron M OrkinUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Pallavi PrathivadiMonash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Joanne ReeveUniversity of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom.
Grant M RussellMonash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Chris van WeelRadboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Monash University · AURadboud University Medical Center · NLBond University · AUUniversity of Hull · GBUniversity of Toronto · CAUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Primary care (PC) is a unique clinical specialty and research discipline with its own perspectives and methods. Research in this field uses varied research methods and study designs to investigate myriad topics. The diversity of PC presents challenges for reporting, and despite the proliferation of reporting guidelines, none focuses specifically on the needs of PC. The Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) Checklist guides reporting of PC research to include the information needed by the diverse PC community, including practitioners, patients, and communities. CRISP complements current guidelines to enhance the reporting, dissemination, and application of PC research findings and results. Prior CRISP studies documented opportunities to improve research reporting in this field. Our surveys of the international, interdisciplinary, and interprofessional PC community identified essential items to include in PC research reports. A 2-round Delphi study identified a consensus list of items considered necessary. The CRISP Checklist contains 24 items that describe the research team, patients, study participants, health conditions, clinical encounters, care teams, interventions, study measures, settings of care, and implementation of findings/results in PC. Not every item applies to every study design or topic. The CRISP guidelines inform the design and reporting of (1) studies done by PC researchers, (2) studies done by other investigators in PC populations and settings, and (3) studies intended for application in PC practice. Improved reporting of the context of the clinical services and the process of research is critical to interpreting study findings/results and applying them to diverse populations and varied settings in PC.

Indexed as

ChecklistResearch DesignConsensusGuidelines as TopicHumansPrimary Health CareResearch ReportarticleauthorschecklistconsensusDelphi studieseditorsguidelinesjournalsprimary carepublishingresearchresearch designresearch impactresearch reportreviewersstakeholder participationsurveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID37788942
PMCPMC10681700
OpenAlexW4387310203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.