 |
 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for all the points so far, the general feeling appears that you can't tell much with regard to validity from the abstract. <<<<<<<<<< Very true Jon, but surely for busy clinicians, the first filter should be relevance? You can usually tell from the abstract if the paper fulfils the 'FOCC' criteria: F - feasible. i.e. is the intervention feasible to do in your practice O - outcomes, are they patient oriented outcomes, i.e. do they make the patient live longer or better C - common, is the condition a common one you encounter on a regular basis in your practice. If it is not, then by the time you do see someone with it, you will have forgotten what the study said anyway C - change. Will the intervention, if truly of benefit, require us to change our practice If you answer NO to ANY of these questions, then you don't need to read the paper. This is the only way that busy practitioners can start to filter out the wheat from the chaff - if we all start looking at validity first, then as you say we often need the full paper. By filtering for validity first, we can exclude much that is not worthy of our attention. Thoughts? Cheers (8(|) Jonathan --------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Underhill MRPharmS Assistant Director, Education and Development National Prescribing Centre The Infirmary 70 Pembroke Place Liverpool L69 3GF Tel: 0151-794-8143 Fax: 0151-794-8067 Mobile: 07968 851325 email: [log in to unmask] website: www.npc.co.uk ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- DISCLAIMER: This e-mail may contain confidential and/or proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If any addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by replying to this e-mail and destroy any copies. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print, or rely on this e-mail.