Methods and quality
| Study | Sample frame | Response rate | Measurement of use of evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wilson et al (2001) | Purposive sample of 491 Medical directors Well-described sample | (69%) 338/491 | Reported use |
| Paterson-Brown et al (1995) | Purposive sample of 98 obstetricians Well-described sample | (100%) 98/98 | Reported use |
| Hanson et al (2004) | Purposive sample of 1064 surgeons/others Well-described sample | (50%) 532/1064 | Reported use |
| Poolman et al (2007) | Purposive sample of 611 orthopaedic surgeons Well-described | (60%) 366/611 | Reported use |
| Sur et al (2006) | Purposive sample of 8100 urologists Well-described sample frame | (8.8%) 714/8100 | Reported use |
| Dahm et al (2009) | Random sample of 2000 urologists Well-described sample frame | (45%) 889/2000 | Reported use |
| McAlister et al (1999) | Purposive sample of 294 general Physicians. Well-described sample frame | (59%) 294/521 | Reported use |
| Wilson et al (2001) | Purposive sample of 3087 individuals Well-described sample frame Primary care | (45%) 1406/3087 | Reported use |
| Young and Ward (2001) | Sample of 60 general practitioners (GPs) Sampling frame not described | (100%) 60/60 | Reported use |
| McCaw et al (2007) | Sample of 1081 GPs and 522 pharmacists Well-described sample frame | (34%) 542/1603 | Reported use |
| Kerse et al (2001) | Random sample of 459 GPs Well-described sample frame | (83%) 381/459 | Reported use |
| McColl et al (1998) | Random sample of 452 GPs Well-described sample frame | (63%) 302/452 | Reported use |
| Bennett et al (2003) | Proportional random sample of 1491 occupational therapists Well-described sampling frame | (44%) 649/1491 | Reported use |
| Young and Ward (1999) | Random sample of 428 GPs Well-described sampling frame | (73%) 311/428 | Reported use |
| Prescott et al (1997) | Random sample of 800 GPs Well-described sample frame | (62%) 501/800 | Reported use |
| Jordans et al (1998) | Random sample of 145 Obstetricians and 104 neonatologists Well described sample | (90%) 224/248 | Reported use |
| Ciliska et al (1999) | 277 who met inclusion criteria of decision makers Well-described sample | (87%) 242/277 | Reported use |
| Olatunbosun et al (1998) | Random sample of 190 family physicians and obstetricians Well-described sample | (76%) 148/190 | Reported use |
| Melnyk et al (2004) | ‘Convenient’ sample Well described sample | (100%) 160/1600 | Reported use |
| Gavgani and Mohan (2008) | Random sample Well-described sample | (65%) 98/150 | Reported use |
| Wilson et al (2003) | All GPs in defined area. Well-described sample | (44%) 1364/3090 | Reported use |
| Carey and Hall (1999) | All psychiatrists in a defined area Well-defined sample | (64%) 139/216 | Reported use |
| Lawrie et al (2000) | All in a defined area Well-described sample | (76%) 93/123 but just 22/123 (17%) contributed to this review | Reported use |
| Hyde et al (1995) | All subscribers to CPCD Well-described sample | 71% 274/387 | Reported use |
| Martis et al (2008) | All in a defined area Well-described sample | NK | Reported use |
| Dobbins et al (2004) | Purposeful sample Well-described sample | 46/60 (77%) | Reported use |
| Dobbins et al (2007) | Purposeful sample Well-described sample | 16/NK | Reported use |