Table 2

Methods and quality

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