Document Detail

Interventions encouraging the use of systematic reviews in clinical decision-making: a systematic review.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  20953729     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews have the potential to inform clinical decisions, yet little is known about the impact of interventions on increasing the use of systematic reviews in clinical decision-making.
PURPOSE: To systematically review the evidence on the impact of interventions for seeking, appraising, and applying evidence from systematic reviews in decision-making by clinicians.
DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and LISA were searched from the earliest date available until July 2009.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion if the intervention intended to increase seeking, appraising, or applying evidence from systematic reviews by a clinician. Information about the study population, features of each intervention, methods used to measure the use of systematic reviews and those used to measure professional performance or health care outcomes, existence and use of statistical tests, study outcomes, and comparative data were extracted.
DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 8,104 titles and abstracts were reviewed, leading to retrieval of 189 full-text articles for assessment; five of these studies met all inclusion criteria. All five studies reported on professional performance behavior; none reported on patient health outcomes. One study reported positive outcomes in improving preventive care. Three studies focused on obstetrical care, with two reporting no impact on professional practice change, and one study reporting increases in the use of prophylactic oxytocin and episiotomy. One study found no improvement in the sealant rate of newly erupted molars among dentists in Scotland.
LIMITATIONS: The small number of studies available for examination indicates the difficulty in summarizing and identifying key aspects in successful strategies that encourage clinicians to use systematic reviews in decision-making. Other concerns lay in selective reporting and lack of blinding during data collection.
CONCLUSIONS: The limited empirical data render the strength of evidence weak for the effectiveness and types of interventions that encourage clinicians to use systematic reviews in clinical decision making.
Laure Perrier; Kelly Mrklas; Sasha Shepperd; Maureen Dobbins; K Ann McKibbon; Sharon E Straus
Related Documents :
18230029 - Use of terbinafine in rare and refractory mycoses.
14985619 - Lawsuits and secondhand smoke.
24685599 - Extraoral plasmablastic lymphoma detected using ascitic fluid cytology and flow cytomet...
16403709 - A systematic approach to medical decision-making of uncommon clinical pictures: a case ...
14759759 - Interventions to reduce work-related musculoskeletal disorders.
12192359 - The use of dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers for peer review: a content a...
583559 - Insufficiency of the anterior cruciate ligament. review of our 118 cases.
11509849 - Mild ventriculomegaly, mild cerebellar hypoplasia and dysplastic choroid plexus as earl...
2381029 - Ruptured ovarian artery aneurysm: a case report.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review     Date:  2010-10-16
Journal Detail:
Title:  Journal of general internal medicine     Volume:  26     ISSN:  1525-1497     ISO Abbreviation:  J Gen Intern Med     Publication Date:  2011 Apr 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2011-03-14     Completed Date:  2011-11-10     Revised Date:  2013-07-03    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  8605834     Medline TA:  J Gen Intern Med     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  419-26     Citation Subset:  IM    
Office of Continuing Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Decision Making*
Evidence-Based Medicine / methods
Patient Care / methods,  psychology*
Physicians / psychology*
Review Literature as Topic*
Grant Support
//Canadian Institutes of Health Research

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Does cultural competency training of health professionals improve patient outcomes? A systematic rev...
Next Document:  Prevalence of endocrine diseases in morbidly obese patients scheduled for bariatric surgery: beyond ...