↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Appropriateness of general practitioner imaging requests for transient ischaemic attack patients: secondary analysis of a cluster randomised controlled trial
Published in
Journal of Primary Health Care, June 2017
DOI 10.1071/hc17005
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

AIMS Many transient ischaemic attack (TIA) patients receive initial assessments by general practitioners (GPs). In a randomised controlled trial (RCT) we showed that BPAC Inc. TIA/stroke electronic decision support (EDS) for GPs improves patient outcomes and guideline adherence. This secondary analysis assesses the impact of trial associated enhanced GP access to radiological investigation. METHODS Post-hoc analysis of a multi-centre, single blind, parallel group, cluster RCT comparing TIA/stroke EDS guided GP management with usual care to assess whether imaging requests and their appropriateness differed between study groups. RESULTS GPs requested 15/291 (5.2%) carotid ultrasounds and 19/291 (6.5%) computed tomography (CT) head scans. Scans were obtained more frequently in the intervention group (ultrasound cluster adjusted OR (95% CI) 1.41 (0.44 to 4.49), P = 0.56 and CT 13.8 (1.7 to 110.7), P < 0.001). All CTs were clinically appropriate. More ultrasounds were appropriate in the EDS group (cluster adjusted OR (95% CI) of 8.4 (0.39 to 92.3), P = 0.18). Overall investigation costs did not differ between groups (P = 0.83). Some apparent avoidable imaging duplication occurred where patients were subsequently assessed by secondary services. CONCLUSION In the setting of a RCT assessing GP electronic decision support, frequency of GP initiated imaging requests was low and largely appropriate especially in the setting of EDS use. Thus enhanced GP imaging access as part of the EDS tool did not result in inappropriate or excessive GP imaging requests. However, some duplication occurred and practitioners need to ensure that test referrals and results are adequately communicated between sectors.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 21%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Professor 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 15 39%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 16%
Engineering 2 5%
Unspecified 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 17 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2017.
All research outputs
#19,159,670
of 27,788,586 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Primary Health Care
#205
of 333 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,561
of 335,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Primary Health Care
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,788,586 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 333 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,138 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.