ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2014
Familiarity of physicians, translational researchers, nurses, and other health professionals with evidence-based medicine terms and resources.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2014. 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.
- Bridging the gap: Identifying diverse stakeholder needs and barriers to accessing evidence and resources for children's pain.Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur · 2022Article
- Critical appraisal of RCTs by 3rd year undergraduates after short courses in EBM compared to expert appraisal.GMS journal for medical educationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a central theme in health practice and training. The understanding of EBM technical terms and the familiarity with EBM resources were surveyed in four different health professional categories. A self-administered questionnaire on the familiarity with EBM terminology and resources was proposed to 218 health professionals (physicians, translational researchers, nurses, and others) working in the oncology field. Relationships between variable and familiarity were examined: Pearson χ(2) or exact Fisher test was used for the categorical variables and one-way ANOVA for the continuous ones. The odds of familiarity for subjects, who had followed or not at least one EBM course, were estimated fitting a multiple logistic regression model adjusted for age, gender, and profession. All subjects completed the questionnaire. The majority of health personnel seemed to lack a sound knowledge of key EBM terms and sources. Physicians showed the highest knowledge of terms, nurses the lowest. Physicians also declared the largest familiarity with the widest variety of resources, followed by others and the researchers. The most popular resource was PLNG, the Italian Guideline System. People who attended at least one EBM course showed consistently higher percentages of knowledge, but the association was irrelevant for nurses. The main perceived barrier to implement EBM in practice was a lack of personal time. Familiarity of health professionals with EBM terminology and resources is still limited to the medical field and needs to be improved. Increasing education may be pivotal, even if different approaches should be developed for different professional categories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24585401What 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.