Article type
Year
Abstract
Introduction:
Objectives: Courses in complementary medicine (CM) in U.S. medical schools are increasing. The need for up to date evidence on CM is essential. CM course directors were surveyed 1) to assess their use of Cochrane systematic reviews compared to other information sources, 2) To establish a mechanism by which results of Cochrane CM reviews could be regularly disseminated to them, and 3)To ascertain relevant topics for future CM reviews
Methods: A four question survey was sent to 75 CM course directors in the U.S. Directors were asked to select the 3 types oil studies from a list of 7 designs (e.g., randomized controlled trials, Cochrane systematic reviews, anecdotal reports) they I found the most valuable in keeping up to date on CM evidence. Then they were asked to select the 5 information sources (e.g., internet, complementary medical journals, Cochrane electronic library) they had found the most valuable in providing good scientific evidence on CM and circle sources they had never used. Lastly, they were also asked whether they would be interested in receiving evidence summaries and, if so, on which topics (to be presented in poster).
Results: Preliminary results (N=21) show the study designs selected most frequently were randomized controlled trials (90%), printed reviews (88%), and outcome studies (67%). Cochrane systematic reviews (18%) were selected less frequently, The 6 information sources selected most frequently are depicted in comparison with the Cochrane electronic library below.
Information source # (%) Selecting as 1 of top 5 # (%) Never used
Complementary medicine journals 15 (71%) 1 (5%)
Textbooks 12 (57%) 0 (0%)
Conventional medicine journals 11 (52%) 0 (0%)
Conferences 10 (48%) 1 (5%)
Newsletters 9 (43%) 0 (0%)
Medline 9 (43%) 2 (9%)
Cochrane electronic library 1 (5%) 11 (52%)
Discussion: Although ALL directors indicated they want evidence based summaries of CM, few use the Cochrane library. This may be because they do not know about the Cochrane library. The most frequently selected information sources favor printed rather than electronic media. Cochrane reviews may benefit from a printed media dissemination such as the periodic publication of relevant abstracts in a medical journal. As a result of this study, all CM course directors will be receiving biannual summaries of Cochrane CM reviews from the CM Field.
Objectives: Courses in complementary medicine (CM) in U.S. medical schools are increasing. The need for up to date evidence on CM is essential. CM course directors were surveyed 1) to assess their use of Cochrane systematic reviews compared to other information sources, 2) To establish a mechanism by which results of Cochrane CM reviews could be regularly disseminated to them, and 3)To ascertain relevant topics for future CM reviews
Methods: A four question survey was sent to 75 CM course directors in the U.S. Directors were asked to select the 3 types oil studies from a list of 7 designs (e.g., randomized controlled trials, Cochrane systematic reviews, anecdotal reports) they I found the most valuable in keeping up to date on CM evidence. Then they were asked to select the 5 information sources (e.g., internet, complementary medical journals, Cochrane electronic library) they had found the most valuable in providing good scientific evidence on CM and circle sources they had never used. Lastly, they were also asked whether they would be interested in receiving evidence summaries and, if so, on which topics (to be presented in poster).
Results: Preliminary results (N=21) show the study designs selected most frequently were randomized controlled trials (90%), printed reviews (88%), and outcome studies (67%). Cochrane systematic reviews (18%) were selected less frequently, The 6 information sources selected most frequently are depicted in comparison with the Cochrane electronic library below.
Information source # (%) Selecting as 1 of top 5 # (%) Never used
Complementary medicine journals 15 (71%) 1 (5%)
Textbooks 12 (57%) 0 (0%)
Conventional medicine journals 11 (52%) 0 (0%)
Conferences 10 (48%) 1 (5%)
Newsletters 9 (43%) 0 (0%)
Medline 9 (43%) 2 (9%)
Cochrane electronic library 1 (5%) 11 (52%)
Discussion: Although ALL directors indicated they want evidence based summaries of CM, few use the Cochrane library. This may be because they do not know about the Cochrane library. The most frequently selected information sources favor printed rather than electronic media. Cochrane reviews may benefit from a printed media dissemination such as the periodic publication of relevant abstracts in a medical journal. As a result of this study, all CM course directors will be receiving biannual summaries of Cochrane CM reviews from the CM Field.