ArticleOTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma2019
Daily versus weekly evidence reports for orthopaedic surgeons in India: A mixed-methods study.
Article in OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Erratum: Funding and Institutional Review Board/Ethics Approval Statements: Erratum.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a dearth of research regarding the impact of evidence-based medicine (EBM) tools, such as evidence summaries, in developing countries. The goals of this study were to: investigate accessibility, use, and impact of an online EBM knowledge dissemination portal in orthopaedic surgery in India; explore whether receiving daily targeted evidence summaries results in more frequent use of an EBM tool compared with receiving general weekly reports; and identify and explain the barriers and benefits of an online EBM resource in the Indian context.
methodsForty-four orthopaedic surgeons in Pune, India, were provided free access to OrthoEvidence (OE), a for-profit, online EBM knowledge dissemination portal. Participants were subsequently randomized into 2 groups-1 group received daily targeted evidence summaries while the other received general weekly summaries. This study employed an explanatory sequential mixed methods design that incorporated 2 questionnaires, OE usage data, and semi-structured interviews to gain insight into the surgeons' usage, perceptions, and impact of OE.
resultsThere were no observable differences in OE usage between groups. OE was deemed to be comprehensive, practical, useful, and applicable to clinical practice by the majority of surgeons. The exit survey data revealed no differences between groups' perceptions of the OE tool. semi-structured interviews revealed barriers to keeping up with evidence that included limited access to relevant medical literature and limited incentive to keep up with current evidence.
conclusionsNeither frequency of delivery (daily versus weekly) nor targeted versus general content affected the use of evidence summaries. Facilitating uptake of current evidence into clinical practice among Indian orthopedic surgeons may require additional components beyond dissemination of evidence summaries.
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.