PRODIGY: implementing clinical guidance using computers.

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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Effect of computerised evidence based guidelines on management of asthma and angina in adults in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2002
   Trial
2. Influence of Pharmaceutical Company Engagement Activities on the Decision to Prescribe: A Pilot Survey of UK Rare Disease Medicine Prescribers.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2020
   Article
3. Using computer decision support systems in NHS emergency and urgent care: ethnographic study using normalisation process theory.BMC health services research · 2013
   Article
4. Identification of features of electronic prescribing systems to support quality and safety in primary care using a modified Delphi process.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2010
   Article
5. Where now with clinical computer systems?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2003
   Article
6. Delayed prescriptions in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2003
   Article
7. The electronic patient record in primary care--regression or progression? A cross sectional study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003
   Article
8. Scope and nature of prescribing decisions made by general practitioners.Quality & safety in health care · 2002
   Article
9. Quality assessment for three common conditions in primary care: validity and reliability of review criteria developed by expert panels for angina, asthma and type 2 diabetes.Quality & safety in health care · 2002
   Article
10. Practising communication skills.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002
    Article
11. Time to reverse that altruism bypass...The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002
    Article
12. Believe me, public involvement does work--honest!The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002
    Article
13. Computers and consumerism in UK general practice: learning from the Australian experience.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002
    Article
14. The Aussie consultation.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002
    Article
15. Myalgic encephalomyelitis--the dangers of Cartesian fundamentalism.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002
    Article
16. Integrating existing drug formulation terminologies into an HL7 standard classification using OpenGALEN.Proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2001
    Article
17. Evidence should be accessible as well as relevant.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2000
    Article
18. Implementation of rules based computerised bedside prescribing and administration: intervention study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2000
    Article
19. What do GPs need to know? The use of knowledge in general practice consultations.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2000
    Article
20. Prescribing medicines for children.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1999
    Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as