Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8537947›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine1995

The effects on prescribing patterns and costs of having a special interest in asthma.

K P Jones, C M Harris, S M Bogle, R Foley, T P Usherwood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

K P JonesGeneral Practitioners in Asthma Group, Medical Marketing Interface, Bath Brewery, England, UK.
C M Harris
S M Bogle
R Foley
T P Usherwood

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To define the characteristics of general practices with a special clinical interest in asthma and to estimate the resulting extra prescribing costs, we sent a postal questionnaire to all English practices containing members of the General Practitioners in Asthma Group. Item and cost comparisons for 24 PACT (prescribing analysis and cost) aggregates were made between practices who had operated an agreed, written management plan for asthma before 1 April 1990 and all other practices in their respective Family Health Services Authorities. One hundred and sixty-three practices with GPIAG members responded (70%), of which 26 filled the management plan requirement. These 26 practices showed evidence of significantly better asthma care provision than the remainder of the sample. Their prescribing costs were significantly higher for respiratory drugs (median 37% higher) but lower in other drug categories. For respiratory drugs, costs were significantly higher for inhaled adrenoceptor stimulants, steroid inhalers, large spacers, and peak flow meters, but lower for cough medicines and systemic nasal decongestants: the number of items prescribed showed similar patterns. The prescribing costs of practices claiming a special interest in asthma are likely to show higher respiratory drug costs, but overall prescribing costs showed no increase in the practices studied.

Indexed as

Anti-Asthmatic AgentsAsthmaEnglandFamily PracticeHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesAnti-Asthmatic Agents

Identifiers

PMID8537947
PMCPMC1295358

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.