Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15646158›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of Saudi medicine

Physician attitudes towards evidence-based medicine in eastern Saudi Arabia.

Nadira Al-Baghlie, Sameeh M Al-Almaie

Abstract readClinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of Saudi medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Familiarity of physicians, translational researchers, nurses, and other health professionals with evidence-based medicine terms and resources.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2014
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nadira Al-BaghlieDepartment of Family & Community Medicine, College of Medicine, King Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia. nadera48@hotmail.com
Sameeh M Al-Almaie

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBecause of the growing awareness of the limitations of traditional information on clinical decisions, there is a shift in medical practice towards evidence-based medicine (EBM).

methodsWe assessed physician attitudes towards evidence-based medicine (EBM) in a cross-sectional study of a random sample of physicians in primary health care centers (PHCCs) and general hospitals in the Dammam area of eastern Saudi Arabia. A random sample of 409 physicians was drawn from the population of doctors. The tool of data collection was a self-administered questionnaire. Only physicians who said they had heard about EBM were included in the study.

resultsOnly 108 (39.6%) physicians out of those who responded had heard about EBM. Of those, 71 (65.7%) were in favor of EBM and 89 (90.8%) had a positive attitude towards EBM, as they scored above the cut-off point in the questionnaire. Using multiple linear regression, it was found that critical appraisal knowledge and EBM knowledge scores were the only significant predictor variables of EBM attitude score. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: There was an overall positive attitude among physicians towards EBM. There was a proportional relation between the knowledge of EBM and attitude towards it. Dissemination of the EBM concept and practice among physicians is highly recommended.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelEvidence-Based MedicineCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPhysiciansSaudi ArabiaSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID15646158
PMCPMC6147848

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.