Study | Risk of bias | Primary measures | Outcome | Authors’ conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|
Wyatt et al28 | Low | Ventouse usage. Steroid usage. Suture usage. Antibiotics usage and concordance of guidelines with systematic review | Overall baseline rate increased from 43% to 54%. Only one clinical practice improved significantly | Educational visits added little to uptake of systematic review evidence. Significant change in ventouse delivery only |
Oermann et al29 | Low | Awareness, understanding, usefulness, and preferred mode of delivery of reviews | Awareness improved significantly (p=0.001). Understanding improved non-significantly | Short summaries of systematic reviews improve awareness of review evidence |
Dobbins et al33 | Low | Use in a programme decisions and change in healthy body weight promotion policies | No significant effect for primary outcome (p=0.45). For policies, a significant effect for targeted, tailored messages (p<0.01). All groups improved | Targeted, tailored, messages are more effective that knowledge brokering and online registry |
Gulmezo-glu et al30 | Moderate | Social support in labour MgSO4 for eclampsia. Corticosteroids-preterm selective episiotomy. Uterotonic use after birth. Breastfeeding on demand. External cephalic version. Iron/folate supplementation. Antibiotic use at caesarean section. Vacuum extraction for assisted birth. Knowledge of RHL. Use of RHL | No consistent/substantive changes in 10 clinical practices. RHL awareness (24.8%–65.5% in Mexico, 33.9–83.3% in Thailand) and use (4.8–34.9% in Mexico and 15.5–76.4% in Thailand) increased substantially after the intervention | Results were negative regarding practices targeted, but there was increased awareness, use of RHL |
Harris et al31 | Moderate | Rates of flu vaccination, bone density testing, increased satisfaction, improved communication, reduced anxiety, improved quality of life | No pattern of statistically benefit in primary or secondary outcome measures but virtually all trends favoured the intervention group. High levels of use, little impact on clinical practice | Advantages for the intervention were seen as trends |
Davis et al37 | Moderate | Knowledge gain, attitude gain | Similar results for attitude and knowledge | Computer-based teaching as effective as lecture-based |
Kulier et al34 | High | Change in knowledge and attitude scores | On average, knowledge scores improved significantly (p<0.001). Attitudinal gains on two questions only (p=0.00, p=0.007) | E-learning about systematic reviews can be harmonised across different languages and specialities |
Davis et al36 | Moderate | Knowledge gain Attitude gain | Difference between groups: −0.5 (95% CI −1.3 to 0.3: p=0.24) | Computer-based teaching and typical lectures have similar gains in knowledge and attitude |
Kulier et al | Moderate | Change in knowledge and attitude scores | The intervention group outperformed by control group by 3.5 points (95% CI −2.7 to 9.8) for knowledge gain: not statistically significant | Both groups had an improvement in attitude and knowledge but the intervention group had a tendency to better performance |
Hadley et al35 | High | Knowledge gain | Adjusted postcourse difference: only 0.1 scoring points (95% CI 1.2 to 1.4) between groups: no difference in improvement in knowledge between groups | E-learning and standard classroom-based teaching both improve knowledge |
RHL, Reproductive Health Library.