Document Detail


Interventions encouraging the use of systematic reviews in clinical decision-making: a systematic review.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  20953729     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
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.
Authors:
Laure Perrier; Kelly Mrklas; Sasha Shepperd; Maureen Dobbins; K Ann McKibbon; Sharon E Straus
Related Documents :
15932639 - A systematic review of intravenous gamma globulin for therapy of acute myocarditis.
20605889 - Hip arthroscopy: state of the art.
20608269 - Methodology for the systematic reviews of occupational therapy for children and adolesc...
20935619 - Content development for european guidelines on the use of opioids for cancer pain: a sy...
20095769 - Conducting a best evidence systematic review. part 1: from idea to data coding. beme gu...
19121509 - Effect of lip bumpers on mandibular arch dimensions.
15552069 - Plasma cell gingivitis apparently related to the use of khat: report of a case.
12962439 - Benign nodular lymphoid hyperplasia of colon: a report of two cases.
1036739 - Neuropathologic aspects of psychosis in children.
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    
Affiliation:
Office of Continuing Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. l.perrier@utoronto.ca
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Decision Making*
Evidence-Based Medicine / methods
Humans
Patient Care / methods,  psychology*
Physicians / psychology*
Review Literature as Topic*
Grant Support
ID/Acronym/Agency:
//Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Comments/Corrections

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 ...