PubMed · 10243551
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
1979. Coping with the problem practitioner: five experts' advice.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10243551/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
CONTEXT: Letters to the editor are an important means for ensuring accountability of authors and editors. They form a part of the postpublication peer review process. I studied the critical footprint made in the medical literature by 3 randomized trials (Hypertension Optimal Treatment [HOT], Captopril Prevention Project [CAPPP], and Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension 2 [STOP-2]) published in The Lancet and investigated the extent to which that footprint was preserved in shaping clinical knowledge. METHODS: Qualitative appraisal of the criticism of each trial, taken from published letters. Agreed weaknesses and unanswered criticisms were identified from the authors' reply. I searched MEDLINE for practice guidelines published after the trial report and sought evidence for incorporation of criticism into these guidelines. RESULTS: From the time of publication to October 2000, HOT was cited in 9 of 36 practice guidelines; CAPPP, in 6 of 36; and STOP-2, not at all. HOT received 14 published criticisms, 5 comments, and 3 questions, of which 15 were responded to. Only 1 criticism, lack of power, was referred to in 1 guideline. CAPPP received 14 criticisms, 9 comments, and 3 questions, of which 8 were responded to. Only 1 criticism, imbalances between groups, was referred to in 1 guideline. STOP-2 received 12 criticisms, 9 comments, and 3 questions, of which only 6 were responded to. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of all criticism made in correspondence went unanswered by authors. Important weaknesses in trials were ignored in subsequently published practice guidelines. Failure to recognize the critical footprint of primary research weakens the validity of guidelines and distorts clinical knowledge.
AIM: To demonstrate face and construct validity of a computer based flexible sigmoidoscopy trainer. METHODS: The PreOp (Immersion Medical, USA) system is a virtual reality based flexible sigmoidoscopy simulator. The system records several performance parameters, such as percentage of colonic mucosa visualized, time taken, and pathlength of endoscope travel. Forty-five subjects were divided into three groups: novice (never performed a lower GI endoscopy), intermediate (5-50 examinations), and trained (greater than 200 examinations). After initial familiarization subjects were assessed three times on a case module. Results showed a nonparametric distribution. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between all three groups with respect to percentage of mucosa visualized (novice 71.0 +/- 3.7%, intermediate 77.3 +/- 5.6%, expert 84.8 +/- 4.6%, Kruskal-Wallis p <0.001) and efficiency ratio (%mucosa/time, novice 0.163 +/- 0.055, intermediate 0.259 +/- 0.07, expert 0.306 +/- 0.058, p <0.001). The novice group was also slower and had a lower pathlength of instrument travel compared to the others. CONCLUSION: PreOp virtual reality simulator is a valid discriminator of flexible sigmoidoscopic experience. Its effect on training needs to be explored.