ArticleBJGP open2025
Prescription patterns of anxiolytics in remote consultation versus in-person consultation: a cross-sectional study in French general practice.
Article in BJGP open, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTeleconsultation is a new mode of medical consultation in France, which is poorly evaluated, and anxiolytics are among the drug classes at risk of over-medication.
aimTo analyse the prescription patterns of anxiolytics in remote consultation (RC) versus in-person consultation (IPC) in general practice. DESIGN &
settingThis is a retrospective cross-sectional study in French general practice in 2021.
methodConsultations at volunteer general practice offices were analysed. The mode of consultation was extracted. For each consultation with an anxiolytic prescription, the prescribed daily dose (PDD), the age, sex, initiation or renewal of treatments, and the length time before the next consultation were recorded. χ
resultsA total of 46 880 consultations were included from 11 GPs. The rate of consultations with anxiolytic prescriptions was identical in RC and IPC, but the PDD was higher by 6.17 in RC compared to IPC (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.21 to 12.12;
conclusionThe rate of consultations with anxiolytic prescriptions is identical in RC and IPC, but the prescribed doses are higher in RC. Given the adverse effects of these treatments, GPs should reflect on their prescriptions to avoid over-medication.
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.