ArticleFuture science OA2025
Attitudes and practices toward medical literature: a cross-sectional study at LAU Medical Center-Rizk.
Article in Future science OA, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic led to a surge in published medical literature, making it essential for physicians to critically assess and identify credible, peer-reviewed information.
aimThis study aimed to evaluate the attitudes and knowledge of physicians and trainees regarding medical literature reading.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among 156 participants (mean age = 30.65 years) at LAU Medical Center-Rizk Hospital, including medical students, research fellows, residents, and attending physicians. Participation was anonymous. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and Spearman's rank correlation were used for data analysis.
resultsAmong the 156 participants (42% male, 57% female), attending physicians reported a higher average of weekly reading hours (2.95 hours) compared to medical students (2.10 hours). A weak positive correlation was found between age and reading time (Spearman's rho = 0.30,
conclusionThis study highlights variations in reading practices among physicians and trainees. Further research is needed to explore influencing factors and address study limitations.
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.