ArticleArchives of disease in childhood2004
Best paediatric evidence; is it accessible and used on-call?
Article in Archives of disease in childhood, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Literature search: Simple rules for confronting theMedical journal, Armed Forces India · 2022Review
- The evaluation of an evidence-based clinical answer format for pediatricians.BMC pediatrics · 2012Article
- Information mastery, effective health care, evidence-based practice and the otolaryngologist.Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2011Article
- Should we be teaching information management instead of evidence-based medicine?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2010Article
- The information sources and journals consulted or read by UK paediatricians to inform their clinical practice and those which they consider important: a questionnaire survey.BMC pediatrics · 2007Article
- Information resource preferences by general pediatricians in office settings: a qualitative study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPaediatricians wanting to use evidence based medicine (EBM) strategies, need to be able to track down and critically appraise evidence. This requires access to quality filtered resources (for example, Cochrane Library), bibliographic databases (for example, Medline), and paediatric journals.
aimsTo determine whether paediatricians have access to these resources when on-call and if they use them to answer clinical questions.
methodA telephone survey of paediatric and neonatal units was performed during November 2001. The "paediatrician-on-call" was asked whether they could access Medline, Cochrane, and paediatric journals, and if they used these when on-call.
resultsPaediatric trainees were available in 87 of the 97 units contacted. All except one had access to Medline; although only 56 (64%) could do this near their ward. Eighty had access to Cochrane. Thirteen (15%) could not gain access to their library out-of-hours. All except one department had local guidelines, with 71% having >15 guidelines. Access to any of the top seven "best evidence" paediatric journals varied from 64% to 100%. Only 26% of trainees had read the evidence based section of Archives of Disease of Childhood, Archimedes. Many trainees claimed to use guidelines when on-call (61; 70%), but few used Medline (14; 16%).
conclusionsPaediatric trainees mostly have access to facilities to help them to track down and critically appraise evidence. However, few of them have used it to help make clinical decisions when on-call. Many of the doctors contacted said they used local guidelines as their source of information on-call.
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.