Trial reportFamily practice2025
Impact of an interdisciplinary digital consultation platform on general practitioner referrals for musculoskeletal symptoms: a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial.
Trial report in Family practice, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study was to assess the effect of an interdisciplinary, digital consultation platform on the proportion of appropriate referrals from general practitioners (GPs) to an orthopaedic outpatient hospital.
methodsWe performed a stepped wedge, cluster, randomized controlled trial. Sixty GP practices in the catchment area of a large teaching hospital in the Netherlands were randomized. Groups of GP practices entered the trial in four steps at 13-week intervals, at which point they received access to the Prisma platform. The platform allowed them to post questions about anonymized cases to a multidisciplinary group of specialists. During the control condition, GPs did not receive platform access. In both conditions, GPs provided care as usual. The proportion of appropriate referrals, defined as referrals for which a patient had either (i) more than one consultation with an orthopaedic surgeon or (ii) one consultation with additional diagnostics or interventions, was the primary outcome.
resultsParticipating GPs referred 4928 patients to hospital. Intention-to-treat analysis showed a 4.4% estimated increase in the proportion of appropriate referrals among GP practices randomized to have access to the platform compared to the control group, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.22 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.46; P = 0.037]. Per-protocol analysis showed a smaller, but non-significant, 2.2% difference between interventions, with an OR of 1.11 (95% CI, of 0.96%-1.28%; P = 0.178).
conclusionsWe observed a modest increase in appropriate referrals for orthopaedic review among GP practices randomized to the platform. On a larger scale, this could contribute to more sustainable access to specialist 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.