ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2016
A simple heuristic for Internet-based evidence search in primary care: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) are confronted with a wide variety of clinical questions, many of which remain unanswered.
methodsIn order to assist GPs in finding quick, evidence-based answers, we developed a learning program (LP) with a short interactive workshop based on a simple three-step-heuristic to improve their search and appraisal competence (SAC). We evaluated the LP effectiveness with a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Participants (intervention group [IG] n=20; control group [CG] n=31) rated acceptance and satisfaction and also answered 39 knowledge questions to assess their SAC. We controlled for previous knowledge in content areas covered by the test.
resultsMain outcome - SAC: within both groups, the pre-post test shows significant (P=0.00) improvements in correctness (IG 15% vs CG 11%) and confidence (32% vs 26%) to find evidence-based answers. However, the SAC difference was not significant in the RCT. OTHER MEASURES: Most workshop participants rated "learning atmosphere" (90%), "skills acquired" (90%), and "relevancy to my practice" (86%) as good or very good. The LP-recommendations were implemented by 67% of the IG, whereas 15% of the CG already conformed to LP recommendations spontaneously (odds ratio 9.6, P=0.00). After literature search, the IG showed a (not significantly) higher satisfaction regarding "time spent" (IG 80% vs CG 65%), "quality of information" (65% vs 54%), and "amount of information" (53% vs 47%).
conclusionLong-standing established GPs have a good SAC. Despite high acceptance, strong learning effects, positive search experience, and significant increase of SAC in the pre-post test, the RCT of our LP showed no significant difference in SAC between IG and CG. However, we suggest that our simple decision heuristic merits further investigation.
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.