ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1995
Guidelines, enthusiasms, uncertainty, and the limits to purchasing.
Review in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional hemodynamic monitoring.Critical care (London, England) · 2005Review
- European healthcare policies for controlling drug expenditure.PharmacoEconomics · 2003Article
- [Uncertainty and the taking of clinical decisions].Atencion primaria · 2001Article
- The quantity and quality of clinical practice guidelines for the management of depression in primary care in the UK.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1999Article
- What are hospitals doing about clinical guidelines?Quality in health care : QHC · 1997Article
- Informing the market: the strengths and weaknesses of information in the British National Health Service.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 1997Article
- Improving the quality of health care through contracting: a study of health authority practice.Quality in health care : QHC · 1996Article
- Clinical guidelines in the independent health care sector.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
- Setting priorities, can Britain learn from Sweden?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
- Commentary: the perils of checklist medicine.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1995Article
- How to ensure that guidelines are effective.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1995Review
- The integration of evidence based medicine and personal care in family practice.Irish journal of medical scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently government ministers have set out their vision of the future of purchasing. Ineffective treatments will be discarded and purchasing will be based on guidelines or protocols rather than activity. But have the advocates of this approach considered all the issues? This paper examines the challenges of balancing the desire for protocol based uniformity with the needs of individual patients, explores the extent to which existing purchasing structures can support this process, and questions whether such moves will actually lead to reduced costs. In each case it is concluded that oversimplistic analyses are likely to be misleading and that much of the current debate fails to recognise the complexity of health 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.