'Dopesick'; why a critical view of the literature may save your patient's life.

IF 1.5 Q3 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
Education for Primary Care Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-30 DOI:10.1080/14739879.2023.2243880
Raymond O'Connor
{"title":"'Dopesick'; why a critical view of the literature may save your patient's life.","authors":"Raymond O'Connor","doi":"10.1080/14739879.2023.2243880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Teaching critical literature appraisal is challenging. Providing a compelling clinical context using 'cinemeduation' stimulates interest in the topic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After watching the first episode of the mini-series 'Dopesick', where the scope, timeline and extent of the problem of opioid abuse are clearly seen, abstracts of the period literature strongly supporting the use of Oxycontin for use in chronic pain are shown. All were published in highly ranked medical journals. A simple paper evaluation structure is suggested. It is PPICOREAD which stands for the following questions: Who Paid for the study? What was the Population studied? What was the Intervention given in the study? What was the Control group used? What was the Outcome and was it of clinical significance to you? Was the trial Registered? Was there an Educational element for you? Was there anything Applicable to your practice? What was the Duration of the trial? Is this duration sufficient to reassure you that the trial is relevant to your practice?</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The very poor quality and dishonest nature of the conclusions of these papers are quickly and easily uncovered in a supervised workshop. The causes for these clear discrepancies are discussed. The devastating consequences are described.</p>","PeriodicalId":46436,"journal":{"name":"Education for Primary Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education for Primary Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14739879.2023.2243880","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Teaching critical literature appraisal is challenging. Providing a compelling clinical context using 'cinemeduation' stimulates interest in the topic.

Methods: After watching the first episode of the mini-series 'Dopesick', where the scope, timeline and extent of the problem of opioid abuse are clearly seen, abstracts of the period literature strongly supporting the use of Oxycontin for use in chronic pain are shown. All were published in highly ranked medical journals. A simple paper evaluation structure is suggested. It is PPICOREAD which stands for the following questions: Who Paid for the study? What was the Population studied? What was the Intervention given in the study? What was the Control group used? What was the Outcome and was it of clinical significance to you? Was the trial Registered? Was there an Educational element for you? Was there anything Applicable to your practice? What was the Duration of the trial? Is this duration sufficient to reassure you that the trial is relevant to your practice?

Results: The very poor quality and dishonest nature of the conclusions of these papers are quickly and easily uncovered in a supervised workshop. The causes for these clear discrepancies are discussed. The devastating consequences are described.

昏头昏脑";为什么对文献的批判性观点可以挽救病人的生命?
简介批判性文献评估教学具有挑战性。利用 "电影化 "提供引人入胜的临床背景可以激发学生对这一主题的兴趣:方法:在观看迷你系列剧《Dopesick》第一集,清楚了解阿片类药物滥用问题的范围、时间和程度后,播放强烈支持将奥施康定用于慢性疼痛的同期文献摘要。所有文章均发表在排名靠前的医学期刊上。建议采用一种简单的论文评估结构。它就是 PPICOREAD,代表以下问题:谁为研究付费?研究对象是什么?研究中的干预措施是什么?使用的对照组是什么?结果是什么,对您有临床意义吗?试验是否注册?是否对您有教育意义?是否与您的实践相关?试验持续时间是多长?试验持续时间是否足以让您确信试验与您的实践相关?这些论文的结论质量非常差,而且不诚实,这一点在有监督的研讨会上很快就会被揭露出来。讨论了造成这些明显差异的原因。并描述了其破坏性后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Education for Primary Care
Education for Primary Care PRIMARY HEALTH CARE-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
15.40%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: Education for Primary Care aims to reflect the best experience, expertise and innovative ideas in the development of undergraduate, postgraduate and continuing primary care education. The journal is UK based but welcomes contributions from all over the world. Readers will benefit from the broader perspectives on educational activities provided through the contributions of all health professionals, including general practitioners, nurses, midwives, health visitors, community nurses and managers. This sharing of experiences has the potential for enhancing healthcare delivery and for promoting interprofessional working.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信