ArticleBMJ open2023
What information sources do Dutch medical specialists use in medical decision-making: a qualitative interview study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Toward a better understanding of the uptake of interventions for cancer-related fatigue: the perspective of healthcare providers, patients, and partners.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Evidence-Based Medicine Within Surgical Practice and Training: A Scoping Review.World journal of surgery · 2025Article
- The role of guideline organizations in nationwide guideline implementation: a qualitative study.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore what information sources medical specialists currently use to inform their medical decision-making.
designQualitative, semistructured interviews. SETTING AND
participantsA total of 20 semistructured interviews were conducted with 10 surgeons and 10 internal medicine specialists who work in academic and/or regional hospitals in the Netherlands.
resultsMedical specialists reported that they primarily rely on their general knowledge and experience, rather than actively using information sources. The sources they use to update their knowledge can be categorised into 'scientific publications', 'guidelines or protocols', and 'presentations and meetings'. When medical specialists feel their general knowledge and experience are insufficient, they use three different approaches to find answers in response to clinical questions: consulting a colleague, actively searching the literature and asking someone else to search the literature.
conclusionMedical specialists use information sources to update their general knowledge and to find answers to specific clinical questions when they feel their general knowledge and experience are insufficient. An important finding is that medical specialists prefer accessible information sources (eg, consulting colleagues) over existing evidence-based medicine tools.
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.