Fijn 2000.
| Methods | Study design: ITS | |
| Participants | Physicians Clinical speciality: general practice/family medicine Level of training: fully trained Setting/country: not clear/The Netherlands |
|
| Interventions | The PEM consisted of revised independent Dutch national recommendations on antithrombotic prophylaxis of IHD were introduced in 1996. 2 peer‐reviewed clinical practice guidelines were issued: 1 by the Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement, a national scientific authority representing hospital specialists, and 1 by the Dutch Scientific Society of General Practitioners. At the same time, identical recommendations were presented by the Dutch Drug Bulletin Institute and the Health Insurance Fund Council. All of these recommend additional prophylactic antithrombotic therapy, preferably thrombocyte aggregation inhibitors, to existing rescue or maintenance therapy, or both, for acute and chronic IHD | |
| Outcomes | 1 process outcome: number of patient who were prescribed antithrombotic therapy after having a diagnosis of IHD | |
| Notes | ‐ | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Intervention independent of other changes ‐ ITS | Unclear risk | No information was provided |
| Shape of Intervention effect pre‐specified ‐ ITS | Unclear risk | Quote, pg. 740: "All of these recommend additional prophylactic antithrombotic therapy, preferably thrombocyte aggregation inhibitors, to existing rescue and/or maintenance therapy for acute and chronic IHD." "this research will evaluate antithrombotic prescribing in newly diagnosed IHD patients in general practice" |
| Intervention unlikely to affect data collection ‐ ITS | Low risk | The intervention did not affect the source (community pharmacies in the InterAction working group) or the method of data collection |
| Blinding of outcome assessors (detection bias) ‐ ITS All outcomes | Low risk | The outcome was objective |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) ‐ ITS All outcomes | Low risk | The complete databases from 10 pharmacies were used |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) ‐ ITS | Low risk | All relevant outcomes in the methods section were reported in results section |
| Other bias ‐ ITS | Low risk | There was no evidence of other risks of bias |