ArticleCroatian medical journal2017
Awareness and use of evidence-based medicine information among patients in Croatia: a nation-wide cross-sectional study.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2017. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Framing the numerical findings of Cochrane plain language summaries: two randomized controlled trials.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo determine the use of evidence-based medicine (EBM) information and the level of awareness and knowledge of EBM among patients in Croatia.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among 987 patients in 10 family medicine practices in Croatia. Patients from both urban (n=496) and rural (n=482) areas were surveyed. A 27-item questionnaire was used to collect data about sources that patients searched for medical information, patient awareness and use of Cochrane systematic reviews and other EBM resources, and their demographic characteristics.
resultsHalf of the patients searched for medical information from sources other than physician. Internet was the most common place they searched for information. Very few patients indicated using EBM sources for medical information; one fifth of patients heard of EBM and 4% of the patients heard of the Cochrane Collaboration. Patients considered physician's opinion as the most reliable source of medical information. A logistic regression model showed that educational level and urban vs rural residence were the predictors of awareness about EBM and systematic reviews (P<0.001 for both).
conclusionOur finding that patients consider a physician's opinion to be the most reliable source of health-related information could be used for promotion of high-quality health information among patients. More effort should be devoted to the education of patients in rural areas and those with less formal education. New avenues for knowledge translation and dissemination of high-quality health information among patients are necessary.
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.