SynthesisBMC primary care2025
An instrument as an action against the blind spot of acute medical care in general practice - a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Utilization of acute medical services in general practice: a retrospective routine data analysis.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
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
backgroundIncreasing visits to out-of-hours practices and Emergency Departments (EDs) for non-life-threatening urgent cases (NLTUCs) have placed a significant burden on healthcare systems worldwide. General practitioners (GPs), as the first point of contact in primary care, play a critical role in managing acute medical cases. However, limited research has focused on their contribution to acute care, and tools for assessing these cases remain non-existent.
aimThis review aimed to identify instruments for detecting acute medical cases in GP practices, addressing the gap in tools and frameworks specific to the primary care setting.
methodsA systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Searches were performed in PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science, focusing on studies describing instruments for acute care assessment in primary care.
resultsOf 1,560 identified studies, one met the inclusion criteria. The included study described a coding tool designed to assess the complexity of GP consultations, using the ICPC-2 classification system. While this tool effectively captures the multifaceted nature of GP encounters, it was not specifically designed to measure urgency in acute care. DISCUSSION: The review highlights a significant gap in tools for assessing urgency in GP practices, contrasting with established hospital triage systems. Adapting existing tools to incorporate urgency assessment could illuminate the critical impact of GPs on reducing ED burden and managing acute cases.
conclusionThe identified tool for assessing consultation complexity could be adapted to evaluate urgency, highlighting the critical yet underrecognized role of GPs in acute care.
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.