Top

Published in:

01-04-2011 | Reviews

Interventions Encouraging the Use of Systematic Reviews in Clinical Decision-Making: A Systematic Review

Authors: Laure Perrier, MEd, MLIS, Kelly Mrklas, MSc, Sasha Shepperd, MSc, DPhil, Maureen Dobbins, PhD, K. Ann McKibbon, PhD, Sharon E. Straus, MSc, MD, FRCP(C)

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 4/2011

Abstract

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.

Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet. 2003;362(9391):1225–30.PubMedCrossRef

Olson KL, Bungard TJ, Tsuyuki RT. Cholesterol risk management: a systematic examination of the gap from evidence to practice. Pharmacotherapy. 2001;21(7):807–17.PubMedCrossRef

Arnold SR, Straus SE. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices in ambulatory care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; Issue 4. Art. No.: CD003539. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003539.pub2.

Buchan H. Gaps between best evidence and practice: causes for concern. Med J Aust. 2004;180(6 Suppl):S48–9.PubMed

Villar J, Carroli G, Gulmezoglu AM. The gap between evidence and practice in maternal healthcare. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001;75(Suppl 1):S47–54.PubMedCrossRef

Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Available from http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed August 21, 2010.

Laupacis A, Straus S. Systematic reviews: time to address clinical and policy relevance as well as methodological rigor. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(4):273–4.PubMed

De Vito C, Nobile CG, Furnari G, Pavia M, De Giusti M, Angelillo IF, Villari P. Physicians' knowledge, attitudes and professional use of RCTs and meta-analyses: a cross-sectional survey. Eur J Public Health. 2009;19(3):297–302.PubMedCrossRef

Dawes M, Sampson U. Knowledge management in clinical practice: a systematic review of information seeking behavior in physicians. Int J Med Inform. 2003;71(1):9–15.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Wilson PM, Watt IS, Hardman GF. Survey of medical directors’ views and use of the Cochrane Library. Br J Clin Governance. 2001;6(1):34–9.CrossRef

11.

Kerse N, Arroll B, Lloyd T, Young J, Ward J. Evidence databases, the Internet, and general practitioners: the New Zealand story. N Z Med J. 2001;114(1127):89–91.PubMed

12.

Ram FSF, Wellington SR. General practitioners use of the Cochrane Library in London. Prim Care Respir J. 2002;11(4):123–5.

13.

Estabrooks CA, Chong H, Brigidear K, Profetto-McGrath J. Profiling Canadian nurses' preferred knowledge sources for clinical practice. Can J Nurs Res. 2005;37(2):118–40.PubMed

14.

Berlin JA. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group. Lancet. 1997;350(9072):185–6.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(11):982–9.PubMed

16.

Lemelin J, Hogg W, Baskerville N. Evidence to action: a tailored multifaceted approach to changing family physician practice patterns and improving preventive care. CMAJ. 2001;164(6):757–63.PubMed

17.

Gülmezoglu AM, Langer A, Piaggio G, Lumbiganon P, Villar J, Grimshaw J. Cluster randomised trial of an active, multifaceted educational intervention based on the WHO Reproductive Health Library to improve obstetric practices. BJOG. 2007;114(1):16–23.PubMed

18.

Wyatt JC, Paterson-Brown S, Johanson R, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ, Fisk NM. Randomised trial of educational visits to enhance use of systematic reviews in 25 obstetric units. BMJ. 1998;317(7165):1041–6.PubMed

19.

Althabe F, Buekens P, Bergel E, Belizán JM, Campbell MK, Moss N, Hartwell T, Wright LL, Guidelines Trial Group. A behavioral intervention to improve obstetrical care. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(18):1929–40.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Clarkson JE, Turner S, Grimshaw JM, Ramsay CR, Johnston M, Scott A, Bonetti D, Tilley CJ, Maclennan G, Ibbetson R, Macpherson LM, Pitts NB. Changing clinicians' behavior: a randomized controlled trial of fees and education. J Dent Res. 2008;87(7):640–4.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Krahn J, Sauerland S, Rixen D, Gregor S, Bouillon B, Neugebauer EA. Applying evidence-based surgery in daily clinical routine: a feasibility study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2006;126(2):88–92.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Langham J, Tucker H, Sloan D, Pettifer J, Thom S, Hemingway H. Secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a randomised trial of training in information management, evidence-based medicine, both or neither: the PIER trial. Br J Gen Pract. 2002;52(483):818–24.PubMed

23.

Mukohara K, Schwartz MD. Electronic delivery of research summaries for academic generalist doctors: a randomised trial of an educational intervention. Med Educ. 2005;39(4):402–9.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Seers K, Crichton N, Carroll D, Richards S, Saunders T. Evidence-based postoperative pain management in nursing: is a randomized-controlled trial the most appropriate design? J Nurs Manag. 2004;12(3):183–93.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.CrossRef

Title: Interventions Encouraging the Use of Systematic Reviews in Clinical Decision-Making: A Systematic Review
Authors: Laure Perrier, MEd, MLIS
Kelly Mrklas, MSc
Sasha Shepperd, MSc, DPhil
Maureen Dobbins, PhD
K. Ann McKibbon, PhD
Sharon E. Straus, MSc, MD, FRCP(C)
Publication date: 01-04-2011
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 4/2011
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1506-7

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin

Prof. Florian Limbourg

Prof. Anoop Chauhan

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Data Sources

Study Selection and Data Extraction

Data Synthesis

Limitations

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2011

Pending Laboratory Tests and the Hospital Discharge Summary in Patients Discharged To Sub-Acute Care

Small Bowel Angioedema Associated with Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor Use

Primary Care Providers’ Judgments of Opioid Analgesic Misuse in a Community-Based Cohort of HIV-Infected Indigent Adults

Filling the Black Hole of Hospital Discharge (Editorial in Response to Article by Walz et al., J Gen Intern Med 2011)

A Death in Primary Care

Update in New Medications for Primary Care

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

At a glance: The STEP trials