ArticleBMC medical education2020
Evidence-based medicine self-assessment, knowledge, and integration into daily practice: a survey among Romanian physicians and comparison between trainees and specialists.
Article in BMC medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Initial Validation and Psychometric Properties of the Croatian Version of the Pieper-Zulkowski Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Test.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Do we really apply evidence-based-recommendations to spine surgery? Results of an international survey.Neurosurgical review · 2024Article
- Article
- Forty-year Tunisian bibliometrics of general surgery theses in the four national faculties of medicine (1980-2019).The Libyan journal of medicine · 2022Article
- 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
- Awareness, attitude, and practice of evidence-based medicine among primary healthcare physicians in Buraidah, Saudi Arabia.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2022Article
- Reliability and validity of the Persian version of the ACE tool: assessing medical trainees' competency in evidence-based medicine.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Validity and reliability of the Noor Evidence-Based Medicine Questionnaire: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2021Article
- Levels and Factors Associated with Resilience in Italian Healthcare Professionals during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Web-Based Survey.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA gap between the attitude towards evidence-based medicine (EBM), knowledge and awareness has been reported among physicians from different parts of the world. However, no investigation on Romanian physicians is available in the scientific literature. Our study aimed, firstly, to assess EBM awareness and the knowledge used by Romanian physicians, and, secondly, to compare resident trainees with specialists.
methodsRomanian trainee and specialist physicians were invited to participate in this cross-sectional study. The study tool was an online questionnaire designed to explore their awareness, knowledge, usefulness, the attitude in medical documentation, and the use of professional EBM resources. Data were collected by Google Form from January 1st to April 30th, 2017, respecting the responders' anonymity. Two groups of physicians were investigated as trainees and specialists, respectively. Descriptive statistics (number, percentage, median and interquartile range) was used to describe the survey-related variables. Statistical significance on qualitative data was calculated with the Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, or the Z-test for proportions.
resultsTwo hundred and 50 physicians participated in this study (68% trainees vs. 32% specialists). In both groups, a significantly high percentage was represented by women as compared to men (trainees 72.4%, specialists 70%). The correct definition of EBM was identified by most respondents (75.6%). Affirmatively, both trainees and specialists always looked at levels of evidence when reading scientific literature, but a small percentage (6.5% trainees and 3% specialists) adequately identified the uppermost types of evidence in the hierarchy. Almost a quarter of the respondents shared the name of mobile EBM resources that they used to support the daily practice. Only six out of the 49 listed mobile resources met the EBM criteria.
conclusionsThe participants proved to have limited knowledge of EBM and a positive attitude towards the concept. They made use of mobile medical resources without understanding which of these were evidence-based.
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.