ArticleHeliyon2023
Association between self-reported evidence-based medicine competencies and prescribing of drugs without scientific evidence against mild COVID-19 among recently graduated physicians in Peru.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Evolution of professional expectations among medical students at a Peruvian university: A six-year longitudinal study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the association between self-rated evidence-based medicine (EBM) competencies and the prescription of drugs without scientific evidence against mild COVID-19 (present with any of the signs and symptoms of COVID-19 but who do not have shortness of breath, dyspnea, or abnormal chest imaging) among recently graduated physicians in Peru. Methods: We conducted an analytical cross-sectional study where we evaluated a non-probability sample of recently graduated physicians during June and July 2021 (end of second wave of COVID-19 in Peru). Self-rated EBM competencies were assessed by four domains (formulation of a clinical question, search, analysis, and application) using a Likert scale with scores from zero to four ("Very inadequate" = 0, to "Very Adequate" = 4), it was considered as "Adequate" if the score was three or four. In addition, the variable "General competence on EBM" was rated as "Adequate" if in all domains evaluated it presented an adequate self-rating. For the outcome, drug prescription, we considered the use of ivermectin, azithromycin, other antibiotics, hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, and anticoagulants (drugs with no efficacy demonstrated for patients with mild COVID-19). To assess the association, we used Poisson regression models with robust variances and obtaining crude (cPR) and adjusted (aPR) prevalence ratios with their 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Results: Of a total of 239 physicians included 70.7% prescribed at least one drug without scientific evidence. A total of 51.1% reported adequate ratings in all evaluated domains of EBM. Self-rating the "Clinical Question Formulation" competency as adequate was associated with a lower frequency of prescribing medications for mild COVID-19 (aPR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.95). While self-rating as adequate the competency of "Identify possible implications of investigations" was associated with an increase in the prescription of such drugs (aPR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.09-1.20). Additionally, self-rating all domains as adequate were associated with less prescription (aPR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.90-0.96). Conclusion: Seven out of ten recently graduated physicians prescribed some type of medication without scientific evidence to treat patients with mild COVID-19. Having adequate self-perceived EBM competencies was associated with a lower frequency of prescribing medications without scientific evidence to manage patients with mild COVID-19.
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.