Use of systematic reviews of randomised trials by Australian neonatologists and obstetricians
Objective: To determine what proportion of Australian neonatologists and obstetricians report using systematic reviews of randomised trials. Design: Cross‐sectional survey using structured telephone interviews. Setting: Australian clinical practice in 1995. Participants: 103 of the 104 neonatologist...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Medical journal of Australia 1998-03, Vol.168 (6), p.267-270 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 270 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 267 |
| container_title | Medical journal of Australia |
| container_volume | 168 |
| creator | Jordens, Christopher F C Hawe, Penelope Irwig, Les M Henderson‐Smart, David J Donoghue, Deborah A Fraser, Ian S Ryan, Margaret Gabb, Roger G |
| description | Objective: To determine what proportion of Australian neonatologists and obstetricians report using systematic reviews of randomised trials.
Design: Cross‐sectional survey using structured telephone interviews.
Setting: Australian clinical practice in 1995.
Participants: 103 of the 104 neonatologists in Australia (defined as clinicians holding a position in a neonatal intensive care unit); a random sample of 145 members of the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists currently practising in Australia.
Main outcome measures: Information sources used in clinical practice; reported awareness of, access to and use of systematic reviews, and consequent practice changes.
Results: Response rates were 95% (neonatologists) and 87% (obstetricians); 71 neonatologists (72%) and 55 obstetricians (44%) reported using systematic reviews, primarily for individual patient care. Databases of systematic reviews were used with a median frequency of once per month. Among neonatologists, systematic reviews were used more commonly by those who were familiar with computers, attended professional meetings, and had authored research papers. Among obstetricians, they were used more commonly by those who were familiar with computers, had less than 1O years' clinical experience, attended more deliveries, and were full‐time staff specialists in public hospitals. Of neonatologists who reported using systematic reviews, 58% attributed some practice change to this use. For obstetricians, the corresponding figure was 80%.
Conclusions: There is evidence that Australian neonatologists and obstetricians use systematic reviews and modify their practice accordingly. Dissemination efforts can benefit from knowledge of factors that predict use of systematic reviews. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1998.tb140159.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79800653</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>79800653</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4079-5e19e41771ae834b77646220eb7b195cbf3e60eccd2202e69f48539dad32d3d23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkE9rGzEQxUVJSRy3H6EgSOhtt_qzWlnk5BgnbXHpxYFeitBqZ4PM2ptodpv420eLHd97EjPvzczTj5ArznJVmuLbJudSlJmSWufcmFneV7xgXJn89QOZnLQzMmFMqEwL8-eCXCJuUsmV0Ofk3KjCKCkn5O8DAu0ainvsYev64GmEfwFecOxGt6u7bUCoaR-Da5FWezofsI-uDW5Hd9DtXN-13WPAHmly065Ki5LZJx0_kY9NmoLPx3dKHu6W68X3bPX7_sdivsp8wbTJFHADBdeaO5jJotK6LEohGFS64kb5qpFQMvC-Tk0BpWmKmZKmdrUUtayFnJKvh71PsXseAHubQntoW5cSDmi1mTFWpg9Pyc3B6GOHGKGxTzFsXdxbzuwI127sCNCOAO0I177Dta9p-svxzFBtoT7NHmkm_fqoO_SubRI-H_BkE1wro0fb8mB7CS3s_yeB_fVzLta3h1K-AWJhmgY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>79800653</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Use of systematic reviews of randomised trials by Australian neonatologists and obstetricians</title><source>Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Jordens, Christopher F C ; Hawe, Penelope ; Irwig, Les M ; Henderson‐Smart, David J ; Donoghue, Deborah A ; Fraser, Ian S ; Ryan, Margaret ; Gabb, Roger G</creator><creatorcontrib>Jordens, Christopher F C ; Hawe, Penelope ; Irwig, Les M ; Henderson‐Smart, David J ; Donoghue, Deborah A ; Fraser, Ian S ; Ryan, Margaret ; Gabb, Roger G</creatorcontrib><description>Objective: To determine what proportion of Australian neonatologists and obstetricians report using systematic reviews of randomised trials.
Design: Cross‐sectional survey using structured telephone interviews.
Setting: Australian clinical practice in 1995.
Participants: 103 of the 104 neonatologists in Australia (defined as clinicians holding a position in a neonatal intensive care unit); a random sample of 145 members of the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists currently practising in Australia.
Main outcome measures: Information sources used in clinical practice; reported awareness of, access to and use of systematic reviews, and consequent practice changes.
Results: Response rates were 95% (neonatologists) and 87% (obstetricians); 71 neonatologists (72%) and 55 obstetricians (44%) reported using systematic reviews, primarily for individual patient care. Databases of systematic reviews were used with a median frequency of once per month. Among neonatologists, systematic reviews were used more commonly by those who were familiar with computers, attended professional meetings, and had authored research papers. Among obstetricians, they were used more commonly by those who were familiar with computers, had less than 1O years' clinical experience, attended more deliveries, and were full‐time staff specialists in public hospitals. Of neonatologists who reported using systematic reviews, 58% attributed some practice change to this use. For obstetricians, the corresponding figure was 80%.
Conclusions: There is evidence that Australian neonatologists and obstetricians use systematic reviews and modify their practice accordingly. Dissemination efforts can benefit from knowledge of factors that predict use of systematic reviews.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0025-729X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1326-5377</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1998.tb140159.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9549533</identifier><identifier>CODEN: MJAUAJ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Sydney: Australasian Medical Publishing Company</publisher><subject>Adult ; Australia ; Bibliometrics ; Biological and medical sciences ; Clinical Competence - statistics & numerical data ; Databases, Bibliographic - statistics & numerical data ; Education, Medical, Continuing ; Evidence-Based Medicine ; Health participants ; Humans ; Intensive Care, Neonatal ; Medical sciences ; MEDLINE - statistics & numerical data ; Meta-Analysis as Topic ; Neonatology - education ; Neonatology - statistics & numerical data ; Obstetrics - education ; Obstetrics - statistics & numerical data ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Tropical medicine ; United States</subject><ispartof>Medical journal of Australia, 1998-03, Vol.168 (6), p.267-270</ispartof><rights>1998 AMPCo Pty Ltd. All rights reserved</rights><rights>1998 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4079-5e19e41771ae834b77646220eb7b195cbf3e60eccd2202e69f48539dad32d3d23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4079-5e19e41771ae834b77646220eb7b195cbf3e60eccd2202e69f48539dad32d3d23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.5694%2Fj.1326-5377.1998.tb140159.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.5694%2Fj.1326-5377.1998.tb140159.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=2175973$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9549533$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jordens, Christopher F C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hawe, Penelope</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Irwig, Les M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henderson‐Smart, David J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donoghue, Deborah A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fraser, Ian S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ryan, Margaret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gabb, Roger G</creatorcontrib><title>Use of systematic reviews of randomised trials by Australian neonatologists and obstetricians</title><title>Medical journal of Australia</title><addtitle>Med J Aust</addtitle><description>Objective: To determine what proportion of Australian neonatologists and obstetricians report using systematic reviews of randomised trials.
Design: Cross‐sectional survey using structured telephone interviews.
Setting: Australian clinical practice in 1995.
Participants: 103 of the 104 neonatologists in Australia (defined as clinicians holding a position in a neonatal intensive care unit); a random sample of 145 members of the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists currently practising in Australia.
Main outcome measures: Information sources used in clinical practice; reported awareness of, access to and use of systematic reviews, and consequent practice changes.
Results: Response rates were 95% (neonatologists) and 87% (obstetricians); 71 neonatologists (72%) and 55 obstetricians (44%) reported using systematic reviews, primarily for individual patient care. Databases of systematic reviews were used with a median frequency of once per month. Among neonatologists, systematic reviews were used more commonly by those who were familiar with computers, attended professional meetings, and had authored research papers. Among obstetricians, they were used more commonly by those who were familiar with computers, had less than 1O years' clinical experience, attended more deliveries, and were full‐time staff specialists in public hospitals. Of neonatologists who reported using systematic reviews, 58% attributed some practice change to this use. For obstetricians, the corresponding figure was 80%.
Conclusions: There is evidence that Australian neonatologists and obstetricians use systematic reviews and modify their practice accordingly. Dissemination efforts can benefit from knowledge of factors that predict use of systematic reviews.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Australia</subject><subject>Bibliometrics</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Clinical Competence - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Databases, Bibliographic - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Education, Medical, Continuing</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Medicine</subject><subject>Health participants</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intensive Care, Neonatal</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>MEDLINE - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Meta-Analysis as Topic</subject><subject>Neonatology - education</subject><subject>Neonatology - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Obstetrics - education</subject><subject>Obstetrics - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Tropical medicine</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0025-729X</issn><issn>1326-5377</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkE9rGzEQxUVJSRy3H6EgSOhtt_qzWlnk5BgnbXHpxYFeitBqZ4PM2ptodpv420eLHd97EjPvzczTj5ArznJVmuLbJudSlJmSWufcmFneV7xgXJn89QOZnLQzMmFMqEwL8-eCXCJuUsmV0Ofk3KjCKCkn5O8DAu0ainvsYev64GmEfwFecOxGt6u7bUCoaR-Da5FWezofsI-uDW5Hd9DtXN-13WPAHmly065Ki5LZJx0_kY9NmoLPx3dKHu6W68X3bPX7_sdivsp8wbTJFHADBdeaO5jJotK6LEohGFS64kb5qpFQMvC-Tk0BpWmKmZKmdrUUtayFnJKvh71PsXseAHubQntoW5cSDmi1mTFWpg9Pyc3B6GOHGKGxTzFsXdxbzuwI127sCNCOAO0I177Dta9p-svxzFBtoT7NHmkm_fqoO_SubRI-H_BkE1wro0fb8mB7CS3s_yeB_fVzLta3h1K-AWJhmgY</recordid><startdate>19980316</startdate><enddate>19980316</enddate><creator>Jordens, Christopher F C</creator><creator>Hawe, Penelope</creator><creator>Irwig, Les M</creator><creator>Henderson‐Smart, David J</creator><creator>Donoghue, Deborah A</creator><creator>Fraser, Ian S</creator><creator>Ryan, Margaret</creator><creator>Gabb, Roger G</creator><general>Australasian Medical Publishing Company</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19980316</creationdate><title>Use of systematic reviews of randomised trials by Australian neonatologists and obstetricians</title><author>Jordens, Christopher F C ; Hawe, Penelope ; Irwig, Les M ; Henderson‐Smart, David J ; Donoghue, Deborah A ; Fraser, Ian S ; Ryan, Margaret ; Gabb, Roger G</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4079-5e19e41771ae834b77646220eb7b195cbf3e60eccd2202e69f48539dad32d3d23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Australia</topic><topic>Bibliometrics</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Clinical Competence - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Databases, Bibliographic - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Education, Medical, Continuing</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Medicine</topic><topic>Health participants</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intensive Care, Neonatal</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>MEDLINE - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Meta-Analysis as Topic</topic><topic>Neonatology - education</topic><topic>Neonatology - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Obstetrics - education</topic><topic>Obstetrics - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Tropical medicine</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jordens, Christopher F C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hawe, Penelope</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Irwig, Les M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henderson‐Smart, David J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donoghue, Deborah A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fraser, Ian S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ryan, Margaret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gabb, Roger G</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medical journal of Australia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jordens, Christopher F C</au><au>Hawe, Penelope</au><au>Irwig, Les M</au><au>Henderson‐Smart, David J</au><au>Donoghue, Deborah A</au><au>Fraser, Ian S</au><au>Ryan, Margaret</au><au>Gabb, Roger G</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Use of systematic reviews of randomised trials by Australian neonatologists and obstetricians</atitle><jtitle>Medical journal of Australia</jtitle><addtitle>Med J Aust</addtitle><date>1998-03-16</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>168</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>267</spage><epage>270</epage><pages>267-270</pages><issn>0025-729X</issn><eissn>1326-5377</eissn><coden>MJAUAJ</coden><abstract>Objective: To determine what proportion of Australian neonatologists and obstetricians report using systematic reviews of randomised trials.
Design: Cross‐sectional survey using structured telephone interviews.
Setting: Australian clinical practice in 1995.
Participants: 103 of the 104 neonatologists in Australia (defined as clinicians holding a position in a neonatal intensive care unit); a random sample of 145 members of the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists currently practising in Australia.
Main outcome measures: Information sources used in clinical practice; reported awareness of, access to and use of systematic reviews, and consequent practice changes.
Results: Response rates were 95% (neonatologists) and 87% (obstetricians); 71 neonatologists (72%) and 55 obstetricians (44%) reported using systematic reviews, primarily for individual patient care. Databases of systematic reviews were used with a median frequency of once per month. Among neonatologists, systematic reviews were used more commonly by those who were familiar with computers, attended professional meetings, and had authored research papers. Among obstetricians, they were used more commonly by those who were familiar with computers, had less than 1O years' clinical experience, attended more deliveries, and were full‐time staff specialists in public hospitals. Of neonatologists who reported using systematic reviews, 58% attributed some practice change to this use. For obstetricians, the corresponding figure was 80%.
Conclusions: There is evidence that Australian neonatologists and obstetricians use systematic reviews and modify their practice accordingly. Dissemination efforts can benefit from knowledge of factors that predict use of systematic reviews.</abstract><cop>Sydney</cop><pub>Australasian Medical Publishing Company</pub><pmid>9549533</pmid><doi>10.5694/j.1326-5377.1998.tb140159.x</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0025-729X |
| ispartof | Medical journal of Australia, 1998-03, Vol.168 (6), p.267-270 |
| issn | 0025-729X 1326-5377 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79800653 |
| source | Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals; MEDLINE |
| subjects | Adult Australia Bibliometrics Biological and medical sciences Clinical Competence - statistics & numerical data Databases, Bibliographic - statistics & numerical data Education, Medical, Continuing Evidence-Based Medicine Health participants Humans Intensive Care, Neonatal Medical sciences MEDLINE - statistics & numerical data Meta-Analysis as Topic Neonatology - education Neonatology - statistics & numerical data Obstetrics - education Obstetrics - statistics & numerical data Public health. Hygiene Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Tropical medicine United States |
| title | Use of systematic reviews of randomised trials by Australian neonatologists and obstetricians |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T04%3A30%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Use%20of%20systematic%20reviews%20of%20randomised%20trials%20by%20Australian%20neonatologists%20and%20obstetricians&rft.jtitle=Medical%20journal%20of%20Australia&rft.au=Jordens,%20Christopher%20F%20C&rft.date=1998-03-16&rft.volume=168&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=267&rft.epage=270&rft.pages=267-270&rft.issn=0025-729X&rft.eissn=1326-5377&rft.coden=MJAUAJ&rft_id=info:doi/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1998.tb140159.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E79800653%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=79800653&rft_id=info:pmid/9549533&rfr_iscdi=true |