Article type
Year
Abstract
Introduction/Objective: To assess gastroenterologists' preferences for a Cochrane review versus traditional review material.
Methods: Canadian gastroenterologists were randomized into three groups: to receive either the Cochrane review of azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine for the treatment of active Crohn's disease, a compendium of traditional review articles on the same topic, or a compendium of the same reviews but blinded with respect to author, institution, and journal. Review articles were retrieved using a strategic search of Medline from 1996-1998, the same period in which the Cochrane review was completed. These citations were then limited to review articles, inclusion of human patients, and publication in the English language. Over 175 review articles were retrieved using this strategy. We assumed that most gastroenterologists would arbitrarily select a small number of articles based on the prestige of the journal and the author. We selected three articles using these criteria. The outcome was the gastroenterologists' perception of the utility of the review in determining the appropriate treatment strategy for a typical case of chronically active Crohn's disease. The evaluation tool was a 100mm visual analogue scale, with extremes of useless and extremely useful. Basic demographics such as years in practice, community- or university-based practice, and approximate number of patients in the practice were collected. For this study, a sample size of 475 was required. This was based on a=0.05, and P=0.20 (80% power), a minimum clinically important difference of 10mm (10% difference) and a response rate of 50%. The data were compared using an analysis of variance. Where the review effect was statistically significant, Tukey's test was performed to assess pair-wise differences.
Results: Results are not yet available.
Discussion: The results of this trial may influence the strategy of the IBD review group. If the Cochrane review is preferred over the traditional review material, then wider dissemination of the results to clinicians is warranted, under the auspices of Cochrane centres, review group editorial bases, and/or patient and professional organizations. However, if the traditional review material is preferred, clinicians should be educated about the theoretical advantages of systematic reviews, and methods of improving the attractiveness of these reviews to practicing clinicians should be devised.
Methods: Canadian gastroenterologists were randomized into three groups: to receive either the Cochrane review of azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine for the treatment of active Crohn's disease, a compendium of traditional review articles on the same topic, or a compendium of the same reviews but blinded with respect to author, institution, and journal. Review articles were retrieved using a strategic search of Medline from 1996-1998, the same period in which the Cochrane review was completed. These citations were then limited to review articles, inclusion of human patients, and publication in the English language. Over 175 review articles were retrieved using this strategy. We assumed that most gastroenterologists would arbitrarily select a small number of articles based on the prestige of the journal and the author. We selected three articles using these criteria. The outcome was the gastroenterologists' perception of the utility of the review in determining the appropriate treatment strategy for a typical case of chronically active Crohn's disease. The evaluation tool was a 100mm visual analogue scale, with extremes of useless and extremely useful. Basic demographics such as years in practice, community- or university-based practice, and approximate number of patients in the practice were collected. For this study, a sample size of 475 was required. This was based on a=0.05, and P=0.20 (80% power), a minimum clinically important difference of 10mm (10% difference) and a response rate of 50%. The data were compared using an analysis of variance. Where the review effect was statistically significant, Tukey's test was performed to assess pair-wise differences.
Results: Results are not yet available.
Discussion: The results of this trial may influence the strategy of the IBD review group. If the Cochrane review is preferred over the traditional review material, then wider dissemination of the results to clinicians is warranted, under the auspices of Cochrane centres, review group editorial bases, and/or patient and professional organizations. However, if the traditional review material is preferred, clinicians should be educated about the theoretical advantages of systematic reviews, and methods of improving the attractiveness of these reviews to practicing clinicians should be devised.