Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8776914›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1996

Formulary revision: eliciting the opinions of users.

H McGavock, K Wilson-Davis, S A McGavock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Author's reply.Indian journal of pharmacology · 2011
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

H McGavockDrug Utilization Research Unit, Queen's University of Belfast.
K Wilson-Davis
S A McGavock

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFew peer-reviewed reports have been published that document the extent and type of use of published formularies in general practice. As publishers of the Practice Formulary of the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Northern Ireland Faculty Board commissioned a large-scale survey to quantify these issues, for the purpose of improving the revision process.

aimThe aim of the survey was to investigate the extent to which general practitioners in Northern Ireland use the Practice Formulary and the ways in which they use it, and to elicit their opinions on ways in which it could be improved.

resultsA total of 371 completed questionnaires were received (response rate of 38%), 49 respondents (13%) stating that they had not received the formulary. Out of the 322 respondents who had received it, 84% used the formulary occasionally, and 41% either had or were producing their own practice formulary (32% of these had used the RCGP formulary in its production). Almost all respondents (90%) considered a formulary useful in general practice. The presentation and layout was approved by 273 respondents (85%) and 259 (80%) agreed strongly with the drug selection. The formulary was used as a source of drugs information by 191 respondents (59%) and as a teaching aid by 103 (32%). A total of 65 criticisms or suggestions for improving the next edition were received. Revision is now under way and 18 of the original respondents have volunteered to be members of the revision committee. No judgement was made about the non-respondents.

conclusionThe largest survey yet conducted of published formulary use in one region elicited the extent of use, type of use, criticisms and suggestions for improvement. These suggestions are being used as a guide to revision of the next edition.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelFamily PracticeFormularies as TopicHumansNorthern IrelandSocieties, Medical

Identifiers

PMID8776914
PMCPMC1239695

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.