Icsezer Sabine, Linde Klaus
Zentrum für naturheilkundliche Forschung, II. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität, München, Deutschland.
Forsch Komplementmed. 2008 Oct;15(5):261-7. doi: 10.1159/000160049. Epub 2008 Oct 8.
To investigate to which extent physicians participating in specialization and continuing medical education courses read clinical research articles and how relevant they deem this for their practical work.
Physicians participating in courses on homeopathy (n = 96), acupuncture (n = 79), naturopathy (n = 75), family medicine (n = 50) and internal medicine (n = 136) filled in a questionnaire. They were asked to what extent and how they kept themselves informed about clinical research, how their daily work was affected by clinical research and why they did not spend more time reading clinical research literature.
More than half of the participants (51%) reported they did not spend any time reading original research articles. Differences between the five groups of physicians were small. The proportion of physicians who considered the relevance of clinical trials for practical work as high or very high was 52% among participants of courses on homeopathy, 68% on acupuncture, 67% on naturopathy, 63% on family medicine and 81% in the internal medicine event. In all groups of physicians the relevance of clinical trials and meta-analyses to daily work was rated lower than that of personal experience, advice from colleagues, continuing medical education events, pathophysiological explanations, textbooks and guidelines. The large amount of time required to read original articles was reported as a major reason for the limited interest in clinical research.
Among the physicians participating in this survey clinical trials and meta-analyses were only of subordinate relevance for clinical decision making.
调查参加专科培训和继续医学教育课程的医生阅读临床研究文章的程度，以及他们认为这对其实际工作的相关性如何。
参加顺势疗法课程（n = 96）、针灸课程（n = 79）、自然疗法课程（n = 75）、家庭医学课程（n = 50）和内科课程（n = 136）的医生填写了一份问卷。他们被问及在何种程度上以及如何了解临床研究，临床研究如何影响他们的日常工作，以及他们为什么没有花更多时间阅读临床研究文献。
超过一半的参与者（51%）报告称他们没有花任何时间阅读原创研究文章。五组医生之间的差异很小。认为临床试验对实际工作相关性高或非常高的医生比例，在顺势疗法课程参与者中为52%，针灸课程中为68%，自然疗法课程中为67%，家庭医学课程中为63%，内科课程中为81%。在所有医生组中，临床试验和荟萃分析对日常工作的相关性被评为低于个人经验、同事建议、继续医学教育活动、病理生理学解释、教科书和指南。阅读原创文章所需的大量时间被报告为对临床研究兴趣有限的主要原因。
在参与本次调查的医生中，临床试验和荟萃分析对临床决策的相关性仅处于次要地位。
