• J A Doust and C A Silagy.
• Department of General Practice, Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide. jenny.doust@flinders.edu.au
• Med. J. Aust. 2000 Feb 21; 172 (4): 153156153-6.

ObjectiveTo assess how general practitioners might interpret and apply the results of a systematic review relevant to general practice.DesignCross-sectional postal survey of general practitioners in August 1997.Participants51 general practitioners in the Southern Division of General Practice in Adelaide and 11 professors or heads of departments of general practice.Main Outcome MeasuresExtent to which comments on the implications for practice and implications for research coincided with the evidence presented in a systematic review of antibiotics for the treatment of acute otitis media in children; and reported probability that respondents would prescribe antibiotics in three brief case scenarios.ResultsThere was considerable variation in the comments made by general practitioners on the implications of the review for clinical practice. After reading the review, respondents with training in critical appraisal were more likely to state that children with acute otitis media would usually recover spontaneously and reported a lower probability of prescribing antibiotics in two of the three case scenarios.ConclusionsProviding systematic reviews is not sufficient for the results of such evidence to be translated into clinical practice. There is an association between critical appraisal skills and the application of evidence-based practice.

32 keywords...

hide…