ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2011
Do we need individualised prescribing quality assessment? The case of diabetes treatment.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prescribing quality assessment is increasingly used in improvement programs and pay-for-performance policies. Within the area of diabetes many quality indicators have been developed. Some measure prescribing on a general level, e.g. calculating percentages of patients prescribed any statins. Others are very specific, e.g. percentages of patients with an elevated LDL-cholesterol in whom lipid-lowering treatment is started unless contraindicated or return to control within 3 months. Although the latter seems more precise, we question how far one should go in developing such indicators. Using the example of diabetes treatment, we highlight the need, opportunities, and feasibility of assessing prescribing quality in the context of individualised treatment. We conclude that it is not realistic to develop indicators that take all possible aspects of therapy non-response, intolerance and patient preferences into account. We do recommend further development of indicators that better address subpopulations in need of adjusted treatment, such as elderly or patients with comorbidity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21744186What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.