ArticleBMC health services research2003
Clinical Evidence: a useful tool for promoting evidence-based practice?
Article in BMC health services research, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intervention mapping for the development of a strategy to implement the insurance medicine guidelines for depression.BMC public health · 2011Article
- Clinical evidence continuous medical education: a randomised educational trial of an open access e-learning program for transferring evidence-based information - ICEKUBE (Italian Clinical Evidence Knowledge Utilization Behaviour Evaluation) - study protocol.Implementation science : IS · 2008Article
- Using Clinical Evidence in a national continuing medical education program in Italy.PLoS medicine · 2007Article
- Golf-related lower back injuries: an epidemiological survey.Journal of chiropractic medicine · 2007Article
- General practitioners say that evidence based information is changing practice.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch has shown that many healthcare professionals have problems with guidelines as they would prefer to be given all relevant information relevant to decision-making rather than being told what they should do. This study assesses doctors' judgement of the validity, relevance, clarity and usability of the Italian translation of Clinical Evidence (CE) after its free distribution launched by the Italian Ministry of Health.
methodsOpinions elicited using a standardised questionnaire delivered either by mail or during educational or professional meetings.
resultsTwenty percent (n = 1350) doctors participated the study. Most of them found CE's content valid, useful and relevant for their clinical practice, and said CE can foster communications among clinicians, particularly among GPs and specialists. Hospital doctors (63%) more often than GPs (48%) read the detailed presentation of individual chapters. Twenty-nine percent said CE brought changes in their clinical practice. Doctors appreciated CE's nature of an evidence-based information compendium and would have not preferred a collection of practice guidelines.
conclusionsOverall, the pilot initiative launched by the Italian Ministry of Health seems to have been well received and to support the subsequent decision to make the Italian edition of Clinical Evidence concise available to all doctors practising in the country. Local implementation initiatives should be warranted to favour doctor's use of CE.
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.