The need for education in evidence-based orthopedics: an international survey of AO course participants.

Beate P Hanson, Mohit Bhandari, Laurent Audige, David Helfet
{"title":"The need for education in evidence-based orthopedics: an international survey of AO course participants.","authors":"Beate P Hanson,&nbsp;Mohit Bhandari,&nbsp;Laurent Audige,&nbsp;David Helfet","doi":"10.1080/00016470410001277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As evidence-based practitioners, surgeons need to understand study methodology to critically appraise and conduct research.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine current understanding of study methodology and critical appraisal among participants at an international educational meeting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We surveyed participants attending the 76th and 77th AO Course (December 2002) in Davos, Switzerland. We obtained information regarding participant age, gender, clinical and research experience, subspecialty area and respondents' roles in the AO course. The survey questions were formatted into three areas: evidence-based orthopedics, randomization and blinding issues.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>532 participants completed the questionnaire. They represented 78 countries, the majority of which (31%) were from German-speaking countries. A greater proportion of participants trusted randomized controlled trials (89%) and meta-analyses of randomized trials (81%) when compared with case series and case reports. 60 respondents (11%) had never heard of the term \"randomization\" as a study design method to limit bias, and 114 respondents (21%) had never heard of the term \"blinding\" as a method of reducing bias in surgical research. When those who had heard of blinding were asked to define the term \"double-blind\", 20 different definitions resulted. Having completed the survey, nine-tenths of the respondents endorsed the need for training of surgeons in research methodology.</p>","PeriodicalId":75403,"journal":{"name":"Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica","volume":"75 3","pages":"328-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00016470410001277","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00016470410001277","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

Background: As evidence-based practitioners, surgeons need to understand study methodology to critically appraise and conduct research.

Objective: To determine current understanding of study methodology and critical appraisal among participants at an international educational meeting.

Methods: We surveyed participants attending the 76th and 77th AO Course (December 2002) in Davos, Switzerland. We obtained information regarding participant age, gender, clinical and research experience, subspecialty area and respondents' roles in the AO course. The survey questions were formatted into three areas: evidence-based orthopedics, randomization and blinding issues.

Results: 532 participants completed the questionnaire. They represented 78 countries, the majority of which (31%) were from German-speaking countries. A greater proportion of participants trusted randomized controlled trials (89%) and meta-analyses of randomized trials (81%) when compared with case series and case reports. 60 respondents (11%) had never heard of the term "randomization" as a study design method to limit bias, and 114 respondents (21%) had never heard of the term "blinding" as a method of reducing bias in surgical research. When those who had heard of blinding were asked to define the term "double-blind", 20 different definitions resulted. Having completed the survey, nine-tenths of the respondents endorsed the need for training of surgeons in research methodology.

对循证骨科教育的需求:对AO课程参与者的国际调查。
背景:作为循证医师,外科医生需要了解研究方法,以批判性地评估和开展研究。目的:了解国际教育会议参与者对研究方法和批判性评价的当前理解。方法:我们调查了参加2002年12月在瑞士达沃斯举行的第76和77届AO课程的参与者。我们获得了参与者的年龄、性别、临床和研究经验、亚专业领域和受访者在AO课程中的角色等信息。调查问题分为三个方面:循证骨科、随机化和盲法问题。结果:532名参与者完成问卷调查。他们来自78个国家,其中大多数(31%)来自德语国家。与病例系列和病例报告相比,更大比例的参与者相信随机对照试验(89%)和随机试验的荟萃分析(81%)。60名受访者(11%)从未听说过将“随机化”作为限制偏倚的研究设计方法,114名受访者(21%)从未听说过将“盲法”作为外科研究中减少偏倚的方法。当那些听说过盲法的人被要求定义“双盲”一词时,出现了20种不同的定义。在完成调查后,十分之九的受访者认为有需要培训外科医生的研究方法。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书