↓ Skip to main content

Evidence‐Based Medicine and the Practicing Clinician

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, December 2001
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
211 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
Title
Evidence‐Based Medicine and the Practicing Clinician
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, December 2001
DOI 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.00323.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Finlay A. McAlister, Ian Graham, Gerald W. Karr, Andreas Laupacis

Abstract

To assess the attitudes of practicing general internists toward evidence-based medicine (EBM-defined as the process of systematically finding, appraising, and using contemporaneous research findings as the basis for clinical decisions) and their perceived barriers to its use. Cross-sectional, self-administered mail questionnaire conducted between June and October 1997. Canada. Questionnaires were sent to all 521 physician members of the Canadian Society of Internal Medicine with Canadian mailing addresses; 296 (60%) of 495 eligible physicians responded. Exclusion of two incomplete surveys resulted in a final sample size of 294. Mean age of respondents was 46 years, 80% were male, and 52% worked in large urban medical centers. Participants reported using EBM in their clinical practice always (33, 11%), often (173, 59%), sometimes (80, 27%), or rarely/never (8, 3%). There were no significant differences in demographics, training, or practice types or locales on univariate or multivariate analyses between those who reported using EBM often or always and those who did not. Both groups reported high usage of traditional (non-EBM) information sources: clinical experience (93%), review articles (73%), the opinion of colleagues (61%), and textbooks (45%). Only a minority used EBM-related information sources such as primary research studies (45%), clinical practice guidelines (27%), or Cochrane Collaboration Reviews (5%) on a regular basis. Barriers to the use of EBM cited by respondents included lack of relevant evidence (26%), newness of the concept (25%), impracticality for use in day-to-day practice (14%), and negative impact on traditional medical skills and "the art of medicine" (11%). Less than half of respondents were confident in basic skills of EBM such as conducting a literature search (46%) or evaluating the methodology of published studies (34%). However, respondents demonstrated a high level of interest in further education about these tasks. The likelihood that physicians will incorporate EBM into their practice cannot be predicted by any demographic or practice-related factors. Even those physicians who are most enthusiastic about EBM rely more on traditional information sources than EBM-related sources. The most important barriers to increased use of EBM by practicing clinicians appear to be lack of knowledge and familiarity with the basic skills, rather than skepticism about the concept.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
New Zealand 1 1%
Indonesia 1 1%
Saudi Arabia 1 1%
Egypt 1 1%
Unknown 94 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Student > Master 13 13%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 7 7%
Other 30 30%
Unknown 16 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 19 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 December 2015.
All research outputs
#15,168,167
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#5,460
of 8,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,267
of 131,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#186
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 131,407 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 209 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.