ArticleBMC health services research2002
Accuracy of responses from postal surveys about continuing medical education and information behavior: experiences from a survey among German diabetologists.
Article in BMC health services research, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nail-extraction device mismatch: an issue in developing countries intramedullary nail removal practice.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Implant removal of osteosynthesis: the Dutch practice. Results of a survey.Journal of trauma management & outcomes · 2012Article
- A national facilitation project to improve primary palliative care: impact of the Gold Standards Framework on process and self-ratings of quality.Quality & safety in health care · 2009Article
- Surgeons' beliefs and perceptions about removal of orthopaedic implants.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostal surveys are a popular instrument for studies about continuing medical education habits. But little is known about the accuracy of responses in such surveys. The objective of this study was to quantify the magnitude of inaccurate responses in a postal survey among physicians.
methodsA sub-analysis of a questionnaire about continuing medical education habits and information management was performed. The five variables used for the quantitative analysis are based on a question about the knowledge of a fictitious technical term and on inconsistencies in contingency tables of answers to logically connected questions.
resultsResponse rate was 52%. Non-response bias is possible but seems not very likely since an association between demographic variables and inconsistent responses could not be found. About 10% of responses were inaccurate according to the definition.
conclusionIt was shown that a sub-analysis of a questionnaire makes a quantification of inaccurate responses in postal surveys possible. This sub-analysis revealed that a notable portion of responses in a postal survey about continuing medical education habits and information management was inaccurate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.