What data sources do ophthalmologists trust?

Evidence-Based Medicine Pub Date : 2017-12-01 Epub Date: 2017-10-17 DOI:10.1136/ebmed-2017-110757
William C Stewart, Jeanette A Stewart, Lindsay A Nelson
{"title":"What data sources do ophthalmologists trust?","authors":"William C Stewart,&nbsp;Jeanette A Stewart,&nbsp;Lindsay A Nelson","doi":"10.1136/ebmed-2017-110757","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To survey ophthalmologists regarding sources they trust when incorporating new medical knowledge into their practice. The survey was distributed primarily to US-based ophthalmologists. Questions were derived based on the lead author's research experience from congresses and discussions and from mentions in the medical literature. In total, 77 physicians completed the survey of 1886 sent (4% response rate). Regarding study design, physicians preferred a well-controlled, randomised, double-masked trial (99%) with multicentred investigational site across a wide geographical area (80%). Authorship of a research article was most desired from a well-known key opinion leader (KOL) (75%) or any KOL leader at a university (75%). The most selected journal type was a subspecialty publication (86%) and second a multispecialty high impact journal (77%). Study sponsorship was most desired from the NIH or other government agencies (71%) or a university (71%). Doctors preferred clinical opinions from an ophthalmic medical society (75%). For the source of new clinical data, physicians indicated an unsponsored peer-reviewed journal article (77%) or a lecture at a large ophthalmic congress (74%) as the preferred source. Ophthalmologists generally desire sponsors, study designs and opinions that appear free of bias on which to base their clinical practice decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":12182,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"205-207"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/ebmed-2017-110757","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2017-110757","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/10/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

To survey ophthalmologists regarding sources they trust when incorporating new medical knowledge into their practice. The survey was distributed primarily to US-based ophthalmologists. Questions were derived based on the lead author's research experience from congresses and discussions and from mentions in the medical literature. In total, 77 physicians completed the survey of 1886 sent (4% response rate). Regarding study design, physicians preferred a well-controlled, randomised, double-masked trial (99%) with multicentred investigational site across a wide geographical area (80%). Authorship of a research article was most desired from a well-known key opinion leader (KOL) (75%) or any KOL leader at a university (75%). The most selected journal type was a subspecialty publication (86%) and second a multispecialty high impact journal (77%). Study sponsorship was most desired from the NIH or other government agencies (71%) or a university (71%). Doctors preferred clinical opinions from an ophthalmic medical society (75%). For the source of new clinical data, physicians indicated an unsponsored peer-reviewed journal article (77%) or a lecture at a large ophthalmic congress (74%) as the preferred source. Ophthalmologists generally desire sponsors, study designs and opinions that appear free of bias on which to base their clinical practice decisions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
眼科医生信任哪些数据来源?
调查眼科医生在将新的医学知识纳入其实践时所信任的来源。该调查主要分发给美国眼科医生。这些问题是根据主要作者在大会和讨论中的研究经验以及医学文献中的提及得出的。共77名医生完成了1886份问卷调查,回复率为4%。在研究设计方面,医生更喜欢控制良好、随机、双掩模试验(99%),在广泛的地理区域进行多中心研究(80%)。最希望知名的关键意见领袖(KOL)(75%)或大学的任何KOL领袖(75%)撰写一篇研究文章。选择最多的期刊类型是亚专业期刊(86%),其次是多专业高影响力期刊(77%)。研究赞助最希望来自国立卫生研究院或其他政府机构(71%)或大学(71%)。医生更喜欢来自眼科医学协会的临床意见(75%)。对于新临床数据的来源,医生们认为非赞助的同行评议期刊文章(77%)或大型眼科会议的讲座(74%)是首选来源。眼科医生通常希望赞助商、研究设计和意见看起来没有偏见,以此作为临床实践决策的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Don't put off until tomorrow what you can do today: Early cholecystectomy is cost-effective in symptomatic cholelithiasis requiring hospitalization. Intensive glucose control in patients with diabetes prevents onset and progression of microalbuminuria, but effects on end-stage kidney disease are still uncertain. Prophylactic platelet transfusion does not reduce risk of clinical bleeding in adults with dengue and thrombocytopaenia. A meta-analysis of positive airway pressure treatment for cardiovascular prevention: why mix apples and pears? Long-acting reversible contraception acceptability and satisfaction is high among adolescents.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1