Use of systematic reviews of randomised trials by Australian neonatologists and obstetricians

被引:24
作者
Jordens, CFC
Hawe, P
Irwig, LM
Henderson-Smart, DJ
Ryan, M
Donoghue, DA
Gabb, RG
Fraser, IS
机构
[1] Univ Sydney, Dept Surg, Ctr Values Eth & Law Med, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
[2] Univ Sydney, Dept Publ Hlth & Community Med, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
[3] Univ Sydney, Australian Inst Hlth & Welf, Natl Perinatal Stat Unit, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
[4] Univ Sydney, Queen Elizabeth II Res Inst Mothers & Infants, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
[5] Royal Australian Coll Obstetricians & Gynaecologi, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[6] Victoria Univ Technol, Ctr Profess Dev, Melbourne, Vic 3000, Australia
关键词
D O I
10.5694/j.1326-5377.1998.tb140159.x
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
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 10 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.
引用
收藏
页码:267 / 270
页数:4
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1989, Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth Volume I: Pregnancy
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1989, BIRTH-ISS PERINAT C
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1984, SUMMING UP SCI REV R
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1962, DIFFUSION INNOVATION
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1992, Effective Care of the Newborn Infant
[6]   A COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF METAANALYSES OF RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF CLINICAL EXPERTS - TREATMENTS FOR MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION [J].
ANTMAN, EM ;
LAU, J ;
KUPELNICK, B ;
MOSTELLER, F ;
CHALMERS, TC .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1992, 268 (02) :240-248
[7]  
CHALMERS I, 1992, OXFORD DATABASE PERI
[8]  
*COMM DEP HUM SERV, 1995, GUID DEV IMPL CLIN P
[9]   METAANALYSIS - STATE-OF-THE-SCIENCE [J].
DICKERSIN, K ;
BERLIN, JA .
EPIDEMIOLOGIC REVIEWS, 1992, 14 :154-176
[10]  
ENKIN MW, 1993, COCHRANE PREGNANCY C