ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2025
An evidence-based care program in a local healthcare setting in Brazil: Experience and impact.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo provide an overview of the activities and impact of an Evidence-Based Care Program (EBCP) on professionals' decision-making in a large hospital located in São Paulo, Brazil.
methodsRetrospective descriptive analysis of a hospital EBCP's database (covering a 40-month period), involving data from the studies conducted and an online feedback survey.
resultsSince its inception, the EBCP performed 95 scientific technical reports, including 55 Rapid Systematic Reviews (RSR) and 40 Literature Reviews (LR). The authors identified 21 review topics, with the 3 most common being inpatients (n = 20), oncology (n = 11), and surgical procedure (n = 9). The 3 most common technologies assessed were medical devices (n = 28), drugs (n = 27), and scale/questionnaire (n = 16). Studies were mainly used to update policy or procedure (n = 59), support scientific research (n = 10), support clinical program development (n = 8), provide clinical guidance (n = 7), or as a communication tool (n = 5). Among the requestors who responded to the feedback survey (76/95), 97 % agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the review delivered, and 100 % indicated that they likely would request a review in the future and would indicate the EBCP to a coworker. Among the RSR responders (51/55), 94 % agreed or strongly agreed that the EBCP work informed their project or final decision, and 32 % reported that the result presented changed their perspective about the technology assessed.
conclusionEmploying evidence-based methodology, the program provided timely and pertinent evidence for local decision-making. Health professionals who utilized the EBPC expressed high satisfaction with the process and reported a positive shift in their decision-making.
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.