Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Courses on Cochrane reviews use the format of a recognized expert stating a clinical problem followed by another clinician more versed in clinical epidemiology illustrating the methods and results of systematic reviews. The discussion between experts probably fails to address the relevant issues of the process of reviewing the literature systematically.
Objectives: To identify the most critical aspects limiting the comprehension, application and dissemination of systematic reviews.
Methods: The Cochrane Neurological Network sent a group of 70 young neurologists from all over Europe, who were participating in a series of Cochrane-based workshops, an email questionnaire addressing the teaching format, the materials sent prior to each workshop, the need for further training in background sciences, their preparedness to lecture themselves on Cochrane reviews, and the need for more social activities to foster networking and collaboration. At the time that the questionnaire was sent, all recipients had attended two of the four workshops in the series.
Results: Thirty-eight participants responded without further prompting. Of these, 29% had not received or had not had the time to read the material sent in advance of the workshops, 53% needed better background in statistics, and 32% needed better background in epidemiology. After two workshops 42% feel prepared to lecture on Cochrane reviews.
Conclusions: Young neurologists seem quite interested and willing to understand, apply and disseminate Cochrane reviews. However, they do not feel competent enough in the basic sciences of epidemiology and statistics. To maximize the return on the effort spent in teaching evidence-based medicine, more attention must be paid to the background knowledge of participants, allocating more time to epidemiology and statistics, and to more interaction with the faculty and among participants.
Objectives: To identify the most critical aspects limiting the comprehension, application and dissemination of systematic reviews.
Methods: The Cochrane Neurological Network sent a group of 70 young neurologists from all over Europe, who were participating in a series of Cochrane-based workshops, an email questionnaire addressing the teaching format, the materials sent prior to each workshop, the need for further training in background sciences, their preparedness to lecture themselves on Cochrane reviews, and the need for more social activities to foster networking and collaboration. At the time that the questionnaire was sent, all recipients had attended two of the four workshops in the series.
Results: Thirty-eight participants responded without further prompting. Of these, 29% had not received or had not had the time to read the material sent in advance of the workshops, 53% needed better background in statistics, and 32% needed better background in epidemiology. After two workshops 42% feel prepared to lecture on Cochrane reviews.
Conclusions: Young neurologists seem quite interested and willing to understand, apply and disseminate Cochrane reviews. However, they do not feel competent enough in the basic sciences of epidemiology and statistics. To maximize the return on the effort spent in teaching evidence-based medicine, more attention must be paid to the background knowledge of participants, allocating more time to epidemiology and statistics, and to more interaction with the faculty and among participants.