Use of systematic reviews of randomised trials by Australian neonatologists and obstetricians

Abstract

Objective: To determine what proportion of Australian neonatologists and obstetricians report using systematic reviews of randomised trials. Design: Cross‐sectional survey using structured telephone interviews. Setting: Australian clinical practice in 1995. Participants: 103 of the 104 neonatologists in Australia (defined as clinicians holding a position in a neonatal intensive care unit); a random sample of 145 members of the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists currently practising in Australia. Main outcome measures: Information sources used in clinical practice; reported awareness of, access to and use of systematic reviews, and consequent practice changes. Results: Response rates were 95% (neonatologists) and 87% (obstetricians); 71 neonatologists (72%) and 55 obstetricians (44%) reported using systematic reviews, primarily for individual patient care. Databases of systematic reviews were used with a median frequency of once per month. Among neonatologists, systematic reviews were used more commonly by those who were familiar with computers, attended professional meetings, and had authored research papers. Among obstetricians, they were used more commonly by those who were familiar with computers, had less than 1O years' clinical experience, attended more deliveries, and were full‐time staff specialists in public hospitals. Of neonatologists who reported using systematic reviews, 58% attributed some practice change to this use. For obstetricians, the corresponding figure was 80%. Conclusions: There is evidence that Australian neonatologists and obstetricians use systematic reviews and modify their practice accordingly. Dissemination efforts can benefit from knowledge of factors that predict use of systematic reviews.

Making evidence more wanted: a systematic review of facilitators to enhance the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses

“…Seventy‐five full‐text articles were excluded because they did not address perceived facilitators, systematic reviews, meta‐analyses or the databases associated with them. Fifteen unique studies reported in 15 articles 2,4,10,12,15 –25 met inclusion criteria. Figure 1 outlines the search process.…”

“…The communication of clinically important research findings is hampered by the volume and geometric growth of the medical literature. Systematic reviews can address this problem 2 . A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select and critically appraise relevant research and to collect and analyse data from studies that are included in the review 3 .…”

An evidence‐based medicine fellowship in a children’s teaching hospital

“…These results differ from an Australian information retrieval service in which, of 18 service users who responded, four felt it was ‘likely’ and 11 indicated that it was ‘very likely’ that they would alter clinical practice as a result of the information provided 9 . A study of Australian neonatologists and obstetricians found that 72% of neonatologists reported reading systematic reviews and that 58% of this group changed their practice in response to the systematic review 10 …”

The establishment of the Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network

“…With their history of networking, New Zealand NICUs were also eager to join, and in 1995, all 22 NICUs in Australia and all 6 in New Zealand (Table 1) were collecting the minimum data set. A few ( n : 6) NICUs took time to adapt their local data collection to include all ANZNN items, 7 but this was soon rectified. Table 1 lists the participating members of the ANZNN showing the later inclusion of all New Zealand level II nurseries and increasing participation of those in Australia.…”