ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1996
Morbidity and prescribing patterns for the middle-aged population of Scotland.
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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of scope and quality of electronic patient record data in primary care.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003Pooled it
- A survey of validity and utility of electronic patient records in a general practice.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2001Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs part of a large national survey of morbidity recording on general practice computers, morbidity and prescribing data were collected from three separate sources for more than 10,000 patients aged 45-64 years, randomly selected from 41 Scottish general practices.
aimTo amalgamate the three sources of data to provide estimates of prevalence rates for a range of common chronic diagnoses, and of medication rates for associated repeat prescription drugs.
methodForty-one Scottish general practices were selected on a geographic basis in relation to the national population distribution. Within each practice, 250 patients aged 45-64 years were selected at random. Data relating to 19 diagnoses and 40 repeat prescription drugs were extracted from the computer records of these patients and compared with information held on patients' paper records and supplied by patients in response to a postal questionnaire. After assessing the completeness and accuracy of computer-held information, the three sources of data were amalgamated according to agreed protocols.
resultsLifetime prevalence rates are presented for each diagnosis, broken down by sex and age group. Differences in rates between the sexes, and with change in age, were in the expected direction for all diagnoses, and were matched by corresponding differences in entitlements to repeat prescription drugs. Comparison of these lifetime rates with published prevalence rates indicates a latent pool of morbidity within the community, which ranges from 1.0 to 10.0 times the annual prevalence rate for different conditions.
conclusionThe amalgamated data provide an estimate of lifetime prevalence rates for the range of conditions examined. They complement conventional morbidity statistics and have potential value in allowing the underlying management costs of specific chronic conditions to be evaluated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
8995849PMC1239859What 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.