ArticleElectronic physician2017
Obstacles facing evidence based medicine in physical medicine and rehabilitation: from opinion and knowledge to practice.
Article in Electronic physician, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Promoting Evidence-Based Practice: The Influence of Novel Structural Change to Accelerate Translational Rehabilitation.Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Physical rehabilitation in Iran after international sanctions: explored findings from a qualitative study.Globalization and health · 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence-based medicine (EBM) is a new approach to medicine which can guide clinical services toward effective and beneficial results with the least side effects or errors. Up to now, there have been few available articles about specialists' EBM status, specifically the status of physiatrists in the area of EBM.
objectiveTo determine the present status of physiatrists' attitudes, knowledge and skill in the area of EBM and the existing obstacles.
methodsThe cross-sectional study was performed in 2014 among physiatrists in Iran. The valid and reliable questionnaire contained 25 questions in 8 fields including demographic and professional information, point of view regarding EBM, familiarity with databases, educational history and information about EBM, use of scientific resources, scientific evidence usage, and the amount of access to resources. Final analysis of the questionnaires was done using SPSS version 16.
resultsOne hundred twenty-eight questionnaires were completed (response percentage 52.2%). In total, 48.4% specialists had attended EBM workshops and 89.6% of people were familiar with medical search engines. The amount of familiarity with databases was mostly with MEDLINE/PubMed (52.3%). Respondents mainly had a positive point of view towards EBM. Those who had access to databases at work or somewhere out of home had a more positive attitude (p=0.002). Those who had attended EBM workshops and members of faculty also had more positive attitudes (p=0.003 and p=0.01, respectively). Around 70% of responders had adequate knowledge regarding EBM. Physicians, members of faculty and participants who had spent more time on research, reviewed articles and attended workshops had more knowledge (p=0.001). There were three major obstacles recognized: An insufficient amount of knowledge regarding the principles, advantages and applications of EBM, difficulty with gaining access to associated databases and an insufficient amount of activity in judging and analyzing the related articles.
conclusionResults from our study revealed that although there is a significant number of physiatrists who are familiar with the practicality of EBM, they are still not familiar enough with its concepts and applications.
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.