ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1994
Where have all the pennies gone? The work of Manchester Medical Audit Advisory Group.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reviewing audit: barriers and facilitating factors for effective clinical audit.Quality in health care : QHC · 2000Review
- Preventing ischaemic heart disease in one general practice: from one patient, through clinical audit, needs assessment, and commissioning into quality improvement.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1998Review
- Is general practice audit alive and well? The view from Portsmouth.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1996Article
- Investigation into the attitudes of general practitioners in Staffordshire to medical audit.Quality in health care : QHC · 1996Article
- Audit in general practice: factors influencing participation.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1995Article
- Medical audit advisory groups. More investment means better audit.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1994Article
- Medical audit advisory groups. Consider the number of practices.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1994Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical audit has its critics, who point to the large sums of NHS cash that seem to be disappearing down a medical plughole. These criticisms are recognised by medical audit advisory groups but there are many reasons why the work of these groups has not yet resulted in many publications in journals or bumped up health indicators. After discussing the criticism this article describes the work of the medical audit advisory group in Manchester. Real changes in cooperative working with general practice teams and between practices are taking place, and improved relationships between general practice and the hospitals are being helped by joint audit work. The Manchester group is also working to help in setting standards and to cooperate with purchasing. The work of the group is changing as it develops.
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.