Systematic review of service provisions to improve primary care access

[摘要] We read with interest Chapman and colleagues' limited systematic review.1 We were concerned to see an error with reference to our paper.2 Chapman and her colleagues appear to cast doubt on our finding that patients triaged by telephone were more likely to re-consult (P = 0.01) on the grounds that the study was small and that the response rate was poor. However, they appear to have misread our paper. Re-consultation rates were extracted from patient records. A cursory examination of the CONSORT flow diagram in our paper shows the return rate to be 379/388 cases (97.7% of total). We would suggest this is an exceptionally low rate of attrition.

[学科分类] 卫生学