Journal Evidence-Based Medicine Research Articles

Perceptions and Competence in Evidence-Based Medicine

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume (The Journal) recently initiated a section called "Evidence-Based Orthopaedics." Furthermore, a level-of-evidence rating is now used in The Journal to help readers in clinical decision-making. Little is known about whether this recent emphasis has influenced surgeons' perceptions about and competence in evidence-based medicine. Therefore, we examined perceptions and competence in evidence-based medicine among Dutch orthopaedic surgeons.Members of the Dutch Orthopaedic Association were surveyed to examine their attitudes toward evidence-based medicine and their competence in evidence-based medicine. We evaluated competences using a newly developed instrument tailored to surgical practice.Of the 611 members, 367 surgeons (60%) responded. Orthopaedic surgeons welcomed evidence-based medicine. Practical evidence-based medicine resources were perceived as the best method to move from opinion-based or experience-based to evidence-based practice. Four variables were significantly and positively associated with the competence instrument: (1) a younger age, particularly between thirty-six and forty-five years (p = 0.007), (2) experience of less than ten years (p = 0.032), (3) having a PhD degree (p < 0.001), and (4) working in an academic or teaching setting (p = 0.004). The majority of the respondents were aware of The Journal's evidence-based medicine section (84%) and level-of-evidence ratings (65%), and 20% used The Journal's evidence-based medicine abstracts in clinical decision-making. This increased awareness of evidence-based medicine was also reflected in the frequent use of Cochrane reviews in clinical decision-making (27% of the respondents). Surgeons who used and those who were aware of but did not use The Journal's evidence-based medicine abstracts or Cochrane reviews in clinical decision-making had significantly higher competence instrument scores than those who were unaware of these resources (p = 0.03 and p < 0.001, respectively).Evidence-based medicine is welcomed by Dutch orthopaedic surgeons. The recent emphasis on evidence-based medicine is reflected in an increased awareness about The Journal's evidence-based medicine section, levels of evidence, and the largest evidence-based medicine resource: the Cochrane reviews. Younger orthopaedic surgeons had better knowledge about evidence-based medicine. The development and use of evidence-based resources as well as preappraised summaries such as The Journal's evidence-based medicine abstracts and Cochrane reviews were perceived as the best way to move from opinion-based to evidence-based orthopaedic practice.

Perceptions and Competence in Evidence-Based Medicine

Background:The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume (The Journal) recently initiated a section called “Evidence-Based Orthopaedics.” Furthermore, a level-of-evidence rating is now used in The Journal to help readers in clinical decision-making. Little is known about whether this recent emphasis has influenced surgeons' perceptions about and competence in evidence-based medicine. Therefore, we examined perceptions and competence in evidence-based medicine among Dutch orthopaedic surgeons. Methods: Members of the Dutch Orthopaedic Association were surveyed to examine their attitudes toward evidence-based medicine and their competence in evidence-based medicine. We evaluated competences using a newly developed instrument tailored to surgical practice. Results: Of the 611 members, 367 surgeons (60%) responded. Orthopaedic surgeons welcomed evidence-based medicine. Practical evidence-based medicine resources were perceived as the best method to move from opinion-based or experience-based to evidence-based practice. Four variables were significantly and positively associated with the competence instrument: (1) a younger age, particularly between thirty-six and forty-five years (p = 0.007), (2) experience of less than ten years (p = 0.032), (3) having a PhD degree (p < 0.001), and (4) working in an academic or teaching setting (p = 0.004). The majority of the respondents were aware of The Journal's evidence-based medicine section (84%) and level-of-evidence ratings (65%), and 20% used The Journal's evidence-based medicine abstracts in clinical decision-making. This increased awareness of evidence-based medicine was also reflected in the frequent use of Cochrane reviews in clinical decision-making (27% of the respondents). Surgeons who used and those who were aware of but did not use The Journal's evidence-based medicine abstracts or Cochrane reviews in clinical decision-making had significantly higher competence instrument scores than those who were unaware of these resources (p = 0.03 and p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: Evidence-based medicine is welcomed by Dutch orthopaedic surgeons. The recent emphasis on evidence-based medicine is reflected in an increased awareness about The Journal's evidence-based medicine section, levels of evidence, and the largest evidence-based medicine resource: the Cochrane reviews. Younger orthopaedic surgeons had better knowledge about evidence-based medicine. The development and use of evidence-based resources as well as preappraised summaries such as The Journal's evidence-based medicine abstracts and Cochrane reviews were perceived as the best way to move from opinion-based to evidence-based orthopaedic practice.

The identification of clinically important elements within medical journal abstracts: Patient_Population_Problem, Exposure_Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Duration and Results (PECODR)

Information retrieval in primary care is becoming more difficult as the volume of medical information held in electronic databases expands. The lexical structure of this information might permit automatic indexing and improved retrieval. To determine the possibility of identifying the key elements of clinical studies, namely Patient-Population-Problem, Exposure-Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Duration and Results (PECODR), from abstracts of medical journals. We used a convenience sample of 20 synopses from the journal Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) and their matching original journal article abstracts obtained from PubMed. Three independent primary care professionals identified PECODR-related extracts of text. Rules were developed to define each PECODR element and the selection process of characters, words, phrases and sentences. From the extracts of text related to PECODR elements, potential lexical patterns that might help identify those elements were proposed and assessed using NVivo software. A total of 835 PECODR-related text extracts containing 41,263 individual text characters were identified from 20 EBM journal synopses. There were 759 extracts in the corresponding PubMed abstracts containing 31,947 characters. PECODR elements were found in nearly all abstracts and synopses with the exception of duration. There was agreement on 86.6% of the extracts from the 20 EBM synopses and 85.0% on the corresponding PubMed abstracts. After consensus this rose to 98.4% and 96.9% respectively. We found potential text patterns in the Comparison, Outcome and Results elements of both EBM synopses and PubMed abstracts. Some phrases and words are used frequently and are specific for these elements in both synopses and abstracts. Results suggest a PECODR-related structure exists in medical abstracts and that there might be lexical patterns specific to these elements. More sophisticated computer-assisted lexical-semantic analysis might refine these results, and pave the way to automating PECODR indexing, and improve information retrieval in primary care.