ArticleWiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2009
[Implementation of evidence based medicine in primary care].
Article in Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Questions and developments in the general medicine specialty].Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2009Article
- [Implementation of evidence based medicine in primary care].Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The particular situation of primary care - i.e. decentralized setting, comprehensive medical care, and limited access to continuous medical education - makes it difficult to implement evidence-based medicine into daily practice. Therefore, the Institute of General Practice of the Paracelsus University (PMU) in Salzburg and Actavis GmbH Austria developed "REM" (Rechercheservice evidenzbasierte Medizin). This is a web-based enquiry service offered mainly to GPs who can submit questions arising in daily practice which are answered by the service according to current best evidence. In 8.5 months 176 physicians registered to participate. A total of 31 submitted at least one question. In total, REM processed 134 questions. The number of physicians registered and the frequency of enquiries show that REM can facilitate the implementation of evidence-based medicine in primary care. Nonetheless, only a small proportion of the physicians registered actually made use of the service. Improvements are necessary to promote interest in this new way of continuous medical education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19412696What 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.