ArticlePloS one2025
Adoption of evidence-based medicine: A comparative study of hospital and community pharmacists in Saudi Arabia.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEvidence-based medicine (EBM) combines clinical expertise, patient values, and the best available evidence to guide healthcare decision-making. Despite its importance in pharmacy practice, EBM adoption in Saudi Arabian pharmacies remains under-researched. This study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding EBM among hospital and community pharmacists in the Madinah Region, Saudi Arabia.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted with 206 pharmacists from September to November 2023. Data were collected through a validated online self-administered questionnaire to evaluate pharmacists' knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP), as well as their understanding of EBM technical terms. ETHICAL APPROVAL: The study was approved by the Scientific Ethics Committee of the College of Pharmacy at Taibah University, Madinah region, Saudi Arabia (reference number COPTU-REC-77-20230827). All participants received a consent form before participating.
resultsPharmacists demonstrated moderate knowledge (76.5%), neutral attitudes (76%), and fair practices (68%) toward EBM, with hospital pharmacists scoring higher than community pharmacists. Moreover, 83.3% believed that EBM could enhance patient health outcomes, 80.0% were willing to learn, and 35.9% believed that EBM focuses solely on research without considering clinical experience. Time constraints (34.0%) were a major barrier, and 46.1% of the participants lacked appropriate training. EBM education was correlated with higher knowledge and attitude scores; however, it had no significant impact on practice scores. Significant barriers identified were the difficulty in conveying technical terms (16%) and limited access to adequate training opportunities.
conclusionDespite positive attitudes toward EBM, many pharmacists perceive it as a potential threat to good clinical practice. This perception underscores the need for targeted educational initiatives that promote EBM benefits, address misconceptions, and provide practical support for its integration in both hospital and community pharmacy settings.
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.