Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9784451›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1998

From trial data to practical knowledge: qualitative study of how general practitioners have accessed and used evidence about statin drugs in their management of hypercholesterolaemia.

K Fairhurst, G Huby

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
20.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 141 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Impact of lowering the risk threshold for statin treatment on statin prescribing: a descriptive study in English primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Article
  12. Why are statin prescribing guidelines for primary prevention not always followed in primary care?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. GPs' views in five European countries of interventions to promote prudent antibiotic use.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011
    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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

K FairhurstDepartment of Community Health Sciences (General Practice), University of Edinburgh, Levinson House, Edinburgh EH8 9DX. Karen.Fairhurst@ed.ac.uk
G Huby
University of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore how general practitioners have accessed and evaluated evidence from trials on the use of statin lipid lowering drugs and incorporated this evidence into their practice. To draw out the practical implications of this study for strategies to integrate clinical evidence into general medical practice.

designQualitative analysis of semistructured interviews.

settingGeneral practices in Lothian. SUBJECTS: 24 general practitioners selected to obtain a heterogeneous sample.

resultsRespondents were generally aware of the evidence relating to the use of statins in secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, but they were less clear about the evidence in primary prevention. The benefits of statins in secondary prevention were clearer to them and the social and economic issues less complex than was the case for use in primary prevention. Respondents rarely said they appraised the methods and content of trials, rather they judged the trustworthiness of the source of trial evidence and interpreted it within the context of the economic and social factors which impinge on their practice. Moreover, trial data become relevant for routine practice only when underpinned by a consensus on these issues.

conclusionStrategies to promote incorporation of evidence from clinical trials into everyday practice are likely to be effective if they tap into and build on the process of local consensus building. Strategies such as teaching critical appraisal skills and guideline development may have little effect if they are separated from this process.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceAgedAnticholesteremic AgentsClinical Trials as TopicDecision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineFamily PracticeGuideline AdherenceHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansHypercholesterolemiaPractice Guidelines as TopicScotlandAnticholesteremic Agents

Identifiers

PMID9784451
PMCPMC28696
OpenAlexW2103088170

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.