ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1998
Relationship between practice organization and cardiovascular risk factor recording in general practice.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1998. 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.
- The ADDITION-Cambridge trial protocol: a cluster -- randomised controlled trial of screening for type 2 diabetes and intensive treatment for screen-detected patients.BMC public health · 2009Trial
- Primary care guidelines: Senior executives' views on changing health centre practices in hypertension treatment.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2009Article
- The role of 'confounding by indication' in assessing the effect of quality of care on disease outcomes in general practice: results of a case-control study.BMC health services research · 2005Article
- Identifying predictors of high quality care in English general practice: observational study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2001Article
- The hypertension management program: identifying opportunities for improvement.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch findings suggest that the level of cardiovascular risk factor recording in general practice is not yet optimal. Several studies indicate a relation between the organization of cardiovascular disease prevention at practice level and cardiovascular risk factor recording.
aimTo explore the relation between the organization of cardiovascular disease prevention and risk factor recording in general practice.
methodA cross-sectional study was conducted using data on adherence to selected practice guidelines and on cardiovascular risk factor recording from 95 general practices. Practice guidelines were developed beforehand in a consensus procedure. Adherence was assessed by means of a questionnaire and practice observations. Risk factor recording was assessed by an audit of 50 medical records per practice.
resultsFactor analysis of risk factor recording revealed three dimensions explaining 76% of the variance: recording of health-related behaviour, recording of clinical parameters, and recording of medical background parameters. Adherence to the guideline 'proactively invite patients to attend for assessment of cardiovascular risk' was related to a higher recording level in all three dimensions. Practice characteristics did not show a consistent relationship to the level of risk factor recording.
conclusionThis study indicates that the presence of a system of proactive invitation was related to the recording of cardiovascular risk factors in medical records in general practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
9624746PMC1410003What 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.