ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1997
Effective audit in general practice: a method for systematically developing audit protocols containing evidence-based review criteria.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomised controlled trial of tailored strategies to implement guidelines for the management of patients with depression in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2001Trial
- Are audits wasting resources by measuring the wrong things? A survey of methods used to select audit review criteria.Quality & safety in health care · 2003Article
- A clinical audit of the prescribing of celecoxib and rofecoxib in Australian rural general practice.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2002Article
- Expert consensus on the desirable characteristics of review criteria for improvement of health care quality.Quality in health care : QHC · 2001Article
- New Zealand and United Kingdom experiences with the RAND modified Delphi approach to producing angina and heart failure criteria for quality assessment in general practice.Quality in health care : QHC · 2000Article
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
Though many general practitioners (GPs) now take part in audit, there is still concern about the extent to which participation in audit leads to improvements in practice. Improved methods are needed for the incorporation of research evidence into criteria for use in audit. In this paper, a six-stage systematic method is described for developing audit protocols containing prioritized evidence-based criteria. The stages are: selection of a topic, identification of key elements of care, focused literature reviews, prioritization of the criteria on the strength of the evidence and impact on outcome, preparation of full documentation, and peer review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
9519525PMC1409940What 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.