Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
To measure knowledge of Israeli low back pain (LBP) clinical practice guidelines among different subgroups of primary care doctors, prior to designing an intervention programme to enhance guideline adherence in practice. ⋯ Striking differences exist between subgroups of primary care doctors regarding their knowledge of LBP guidelines. These differences will require the design of multiple interventions tailored to each subgroup.
-
Statistical tests of heterogeneity and bias, in particular publication bias, are very popular in meta-analyses. These tests use statistical approaches whose limitations are often not recognized. Moreover, it is often implied with inappropriate confidence that these tests can provide reliable answers to questions that in essence are not of statistical nature. ⋯ Here I discuss the major common challenges and flaws that emerge in using and interpreting statistical tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analyses. I discuss misinterpretations that can occur at the level of statistical inference, clinical/pragmatic inference and specific cause attribution. Suggestions are made on how to avoid these flaws, use these tests properly and learn from them.
-
The purpose of this paper is to explore new perspectives about difficulties academicians may have communicating with clinicians, obtaining subjects, and gaining compliance for their research. ⋯ Evidence to practice and practice to evidence redefines EBM as a circular integration of best research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values.
-
To evaluate the impact of protocol-based care on nursing roles, practice and service delivery. ⋯ The potential of standardization was mediated by the patchy use of protocol-based care approaches and negative perceptions about standardization. Use of protocol-based care has the potential to impact on nurses' roles, increasing their autonomy and subsequently impacting on service delivery.
-
There is mounting evidence of a gap between Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) and physician clinical practice, in part because EBM is averaged global evidence gathered from exogenous populations which may not be relevant to local circumstances. Local endogenous evidence, collected in particular and 'real world' patient populations may be more relevant, convincing and timely for clinical practice. Evidence Farming (EF) is a concept to provide such local evidence through the systematic collection of clinical experience to guide more effective practice. ⋯ Clinical experience is relatively neglected by the EBM movement, but if that experience were systematically gathered through an approach such as EF, it would meet a need left unfulfilled by EBM.