ArticlePloS one2009
Norwegian physicians' knowledge of and opinions about evidence-based medicine: cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Web-Based Educational Intervention to Improve Knowledge of Systematic Reviews Among Health Science Professionals: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- Improved quality and more attractive work by applying EBM in disability evaluations: a qualitative survey.BMC medical education · 2016Trial
- Investigating the knowledge attitude and practice of evidence based medicine education in Sudanese medical students: a cross sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessment of knowledge, attitudes, practices, and self-efficacy toward evidence-based medicine among resident physicians: a cross-sectional study from Qatar.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- The Application of Knowledge-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems to Enhance Adherence to Evidence-Based Medicine in Chronic Disease.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2023Review
- Self-perceived competencies on evidence-based medicine in medical students and physicians registered in a virtual course: a cross-sectional study.Medical education online · 2022Article
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice of evidence-based medicine among resident physicians in hospitals of Syria: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Evidence-Based Medicine among Emergency Doctors in Kelantan, Malaysia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Self-reported knowledge, attitudes, practices and barriers in use of evidence-based medicine among resident physicians in Kenya: a mixed methods study.BMC medical education · 2021Article
- Evidence needs, training demands, and opportunities for knowledge translation in social security and insurance medicine: A European survey.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2021Article
- Evidence-based medicine self-assessment, knowledge, and integration into daily practice: a survey among Romanian physicians and comparison between trainees and specialists.BMC medical education · 2020Article
- Evidence-based medicine among physicians working in selected public hospitals in eastern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Article
- Knowledge and use of evidence-based medicine in daily practice by health professionals: a cross-sectional survey.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Review
- Knowledge, attitude, and practices among Iranian neurologists toward evidence-based medicine.Iranian journal of neurology · 2017Article
- Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS): to measure implementation readiness.Health research policy and systems · 2016Article
- Framework of policy recommendations for implementation of evidence-based practice: a systematic scoping review.BMJ open · 2013Article
- "Push" versus "Pull" for mobilizing pain evidence into practice across different health professions: a protocol for a randomized trial.Implementation science : IS · 2012Article
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
objectiveTo answer five research questions: Do Norwegian physicians know about the three important aspects of EBM? Do they use EBM methods in their clinical practice? What are their attitudes towards EBM? Has EBM in their opinion changed medical practice during the last 10 years? Do they use EBM based information sources?
designCross sectional survey in 2006.
settingNorway.
participants966 doctors who responded to a questionnaire (70% response rate).
resultsIn total 87% of the physicians mentioned the use of randomised clinical trials as a key aspect of EBM, while 53% of them mentioned use of clinical expertise and only 19% patients' values. 40% of the respondents reported that their practice had always been evidence-based. Many respondents experienced difficulties in using EBM principles in their clinical practice because of lack of time and difficulties in searching EBM based literature. 80% agreed that EBM helps physicians towards better practice and 52% that it improves patients' health. As reasons for changes in medical practice 86% of respondents mentioned medical progress, but only 39% EBM.
conclusionsThe results of the study indicate that Norwegian physicians have a limited knowledge of the key aspects of EBM but a positive attitude towards the concept. They had limited experience in the practice of EBM and were rather indifferent to the impact of EBM on medical practice. For solving a patient problem, physicians would rather consult a colleague than searching evidence based resources such as the Cochrane Library.
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.