Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2024
Academic Detailing Compared with Group Meetings to Change Drug Prescribing for Type 2 Diabetes-A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcademic detailing (AD) is a one-on-one educational outreach with the goal to improve prescribing. There is insufficient evidence on the difference in impact between AD and group visits to facilitate behavior change among general practitioners (GPs).
objectiveTo compare the impact of individual AD visits and group visits conveying the same content on treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D).
designRandomized controlled trial.
participantsGPs in Central Norway, visited September - November 2018.
interventionA total of 210 GPs were randomized and invited to an individual AD visit lasting 20 min; 193 were visited, of whom 146 were included in the analyses. In addition, 293 GPs were randomized and invited to a group meeting lasting 30-45 min; 261 were visited, of whom 188 were included in the analyses. Finally, 167 GPs were randomized and included in a control group. Visits were conducted by trained pharmacists and physicians. MAIN MEASURES: Changes in prescribing of metformin and other T2D drugs after the intervention. KEY
resultsThe use of metformin increased with 5.9% the year after AD and with 4.9% the year after group meetings, compared to no change (0.0%) in the control group (p = 0.006 and p = 0.016, respectively). There was no significant difference between the two intervention groups. The only drug group with a statistically significant difference between interventions was insulins, with an increase of 3.2% after AD compared to 19.1% after group visits (p < 0.001). For GLP-1 analogues (p = 0.031) and T2D drugs in total (p = 0.010), we found a significant difference between group intervention and control. Other differences between study groups did not reach statistical significance.
conclusionsShort educational visits of 20-45 min impact the prescribing of drugs for T2D, either the education is given one-on-one as AD or in a group setting.
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.