Skip to main content
. 2010 Jan 20;2010(1):CD006094. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006094.pub2
Study Interventions compared Outcome Int pre (%) C pre
(%)
Int post n/N (%) C post n/N (%) Relative % change (post) Int vs C absolute change from pre (%) ARD Absolute % change (post) P value
Eccles 2001 A&F + ed mat vs ed mat X‐ray concordant with guideline (knee) 52/240 (21.7) 83/328 (25.3) ‐3.6 NS
  Reminder + ed mat vs ed mat X‐ray concordant with guideline (knee) 26/85 (30.6) 83/328 (25.3) 5.3 NS
  A&F + reminder + ed mat vs ed mat X‐ray concordant with guideline (knee) 70/252 (27.8) 83/328 (25.3) 2.5 NS
Oakeshott 1994 Ed mat vs control X‐ray requests by practice conforming to guidelines (limbs & joints) (85.7) (87.2) (88.8)* (83.6)* 6.2 3.1 vs ‐3.6 6.7 5.2 NS