ArticleBMJ open2025
Generalist-led hospital models and their alignment with value-based care: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionValue-based care focuses on delivering high-quality care while managing costs. Generalist-led hospital models, with generalist physicians playing a central role, have emerged as an approach to achieve value-based care goals. However, the evidence on their effectiveness remains mixed. This systematic review will synthesise evidence on the impact of generalist-led models on patient outcomes, healthcare costs and resource utilisation compared with traditional models. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, Medline, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and Scopus from inception to present for studies comparing generalist-led hospital models with traditional specialist-led or other models. Observational studies and randomised trials will be included. The primary outcomes are patient mortality, morbidity, satisfaction, healthcare costs, length of stay, readmissions and consultations. Two reviewers will independently screen studies, extract data and assess quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomised trials. A narrative synthesis will be conducted, with a meta-analysis if appropriate. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation will assess certainty of evidence. Heterogeneity will be explored through subgroup analyses and meta-regression. The review will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this is a protocol for a systematic review with no primary data collection. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and stakeholder engagement activities. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024600155.
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.