BMJ  2006;332:619-620 (18 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7542.619

Editorial

What sort of evidence do we need in primary care?

General practitioners need evidence from and about the patients they see

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

In this week's BMJ (p 635), Mant and colleagues raise again the question of whether large scale randomised controlled trials provide evidence relevant to primary care.¹ In a cross sectional study they question whether the UK national clinical guidelines for stroke are applicable to primary care patients. These guidelines, largely based on the PROGRESS trial,¹ recommend a target blood pressure of 140/85 mm Hg, with further lowering beyond this target desirable through use of a thiazide diuretic and an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor.²

Mant and colleagues critiqued the applicability of these guidelines to primary care patients by comparing the characteristics of patients in English general practice who had confirmed stroke with participants in the PROGRESS trial. They concluded that these populations were not sufficiently similar to warrant widespread use of the guidelines. Patients with stroke in English primary care were generally older, equally comprised men and women, . . . [Full text of this article]

University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
(Sharon.Mickan@gmail.com)

University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

The ground or the goal posts?

Fiona Godlee
BMJ 2006 332: 0. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Applicability to primary care of national clinical guidelines on blood pressure lowering for people with stroke: cross sectional study

Jonathan Mant, Richard J McManus, and Rachel Hare
BMJ 2006 332: 635-637. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

The PROGRESS trial three years later: Clear and accurate interpretations of studies are needed

Daniel G Hackam
BMJ 2004 329: 1404. [Extract] [Full Text]

Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough?

Angela Coulter, Vikki Entwistle, and David Gilbert
BMJ 1999 318: 318-322. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Dawes, M., Delaney, B. (2006). Review articles on research methods for family practice researchers. Fam Pract 23: 489-489 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

what sort of evidence do we need in medical regulation ?

Oliver R Dearlove
bmj.com, 10 Apr 2006 [Full text]