Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8148715›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1994

Measuring prescribing: the shortcomings of the item.

S M Bogle, C M Harris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Sharing resources to create a district drug formulary: a countywide controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1996
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Achievement of cholesterol targets and prescribing of higher-cost statins: a cross-sectional study in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2012
    Article
  4. Accounting for the increase in NSAID expenditure: substitution or leakage?Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2006
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Accrediting research practices.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1998
    Article
  10. A comparison of three methods of setting prescribing budgets, using data derived from defined daily dose analyses of historic patterns of use.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1998
    Article
  11. Prescribing allocations: theory into practices.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1998
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Morbidity and prescribing patterns for the middle-aged population of Scotland.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1996
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Variation in prescribing of hypnotics, anxiolytics and antidepressants between 61 general practices.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1995
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Relationship between the provision of counselling and the prescribing of antidepressants, hypnotics and anxiolytics in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1995
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

S M BoglePrescribing Research Unit, University of Leeds.
C M Harris

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the validity of the item as a measure of the volume of a drug prescribed; and to investigate the possibility that higher quantities per item are prescribed for patients who are not exempt from the prescription charge.

designFive substudies. For the first, a frequency distribution was derived of the different quantities per item of 10 commonly used drugs prescribed by 20 randomly selected practices in each of five family health service authority areas. For the second, the variation in average quantity per item for the same drugs in the same practices was calculated. For the third and fourth, variation in average quantity per item for 90 commonly used drugs was calculated for all 90 family health service authorities and for all 14 regional health authorities in England. For the fifth, the average quantity per item for each of the 90 drugs was regressed on the percentage of items exempt from the prescription charge, at family health service authority level, and the percentage of variation explained by the regression found.

main outcome measureDistribution of quantity per item; variation in average quantity per item between the practices, between family health service authorities, and between regions; and percentage of variation between family health service authorities accounted for by exemption from the prescription charge.

resultsWide variation was found in the quantities per item prescribed by the practices, and in the average quantity per item between practices and between family health service authorities. No family health service authority was consistently high or low in quantity per item across the 90 drugs. Variation in average quantity per item was less at regional than at family health service authority level, though still high for many of the drugs. The proportion of variation accounted for by exemption from prescription charges ranged from 0% to 49% across the 90 drugs.

conclusionsThe item is unsuitable as a measure of prescribing volume, even at regional level: a new measure, based on standard daily dosages, is needed. The percentage of the variation in quantity per item accounted for by exemption is inconsistent, and in over half the 90 drugs it was below 20%--therefore it is not a useful predictor.

Indexed as

Drug Utilization ReviewPractice Patterns, Physicians'Drug PrescriptionsEnglandFamily PracticeHumansPrescription FeesRandom Allocation

Identifiers

PMID8148715
PMCPMC2539693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.