PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Arquivos Brasileiros de Neurocirurgia: Brazilian Neurosurgery 2018; 37(02): 081-087
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1656716
Original Article | Artigo Original
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Information Sources and Decision-Making in Neurosurgery: Results of a Survey of Members of the Brazilian Neurosurgery Society

Fontes de informação e tomadas de decisão em neurocirurgia: resultados de uma pesquisa de membros da Sociedade Brasileira de Neurocirurgia
Rodrigo Gorayeb
1   Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal
,
Maria João Forjaz
2   National School of Public Health, Institute of Health Carlos III and REDISSEC, Biscay, Spain
,
Antônio Gonçalves-Ferreira
3   Clínica Universitária de Neurocirurgia e Instituto de Anatomia, Faculty of Medicine, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
,
Joaquim Ferreira
4   Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Lisbon, Portugal; Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, Universidade of Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal; Campus Neurológico Sénior, Torres Vedras, Lisbon, Portugal
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

18. März 2018

24. April 2018

Publikationsdatum:
25. Mai 2018 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints

Originalartikel zu diesem Erratum:

Erratum - Information Sources and Decision-Making in Neurosurgery: Results of a Survey of Members of the Brazilian Neurosurgery SocietyArquivos Brasileiros de Neurocirurgia: Brazilian Neurosurgery 2018; 37(02): 162-162
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1667058

Abstract

Introduction In all surgical disciplines, including neurosurgery, there are questions about the level of evidence supporting surgical practices and the mechanisms and adequacy of knowledge translation.

Objectives To assess the perception of Brazilian neurosurgeons of information sources and decision-making mechanisms related to their medical practices.

Methods An online questionnaire was sent to the 2,400 members of the Brazilian Neurosurgical Society.

Results A total of 32% of the neurosurgeons completed the questionnaire, 53% had more than 10 years experience, 67% had worked in public hospitals, 34% had performed spine surgeries, and 30% had performed brain tumor surgeries. The therapeutic decisions were based mostly on internship learning (54%) and personal professional experience (52%). The most common information sources were scientific abstracts (53%) and the Internet (47%). A total of 89% believed that evidence-based medicine was relevant, 93% believed protocols or guidelines were necessary, and 74% subscribed to a medical journal. Nonetheless, only 43% had protocols implemented in their services, 93% highly valued a surgeon's personal experience, and 63% showed little familiarity with the interpretation of scientific concepts in the literature. Among the respondents, 83% were willing to try an innovative treatment alternative if it was shown to improve clinical outcomes and reduce severe complications.

Conclusions The disparity in the responses highlights the need to implement recommendations that improve decision-making mechanisms.

Resumo

Introdução Em todas as disciplinas cirúrgicas, incluindo a neurocirurgia, existem questões sobre o nível de evidência que apoia as práticas cirúrgicas e os mecanismos e adequação da translação do conhecimento.

Objetivos Avaliar a percepção de fontes de informação e mecanismos de tomada de decisão dos neurocirurgiões brasileiros em relação às práticas médicas.

Métodos Um questionário on-line foi enviado aos 2.400 membros da Sociedade Brasileira de Neurocirurgia.

Resultados Um total de 32% dos neurocirurgiões preencheram o questionário, 53% tinham mais de 10 anos de experiência, 67% trabalharam em hospitais públicos, 34% realizaram cirurgia de coluna, e 30%, de cérebro. As decisões terapêuticas basearam-se principalmente no aprendizado de estágio (54%) e na experiência profissional pessoal (52%). As fontes de informação mais comuns foram resumos científicos (53%) e a Internet (47%). Um total de 89% acreditava que a medicina baseada em evidências era relevante, 93% acreditavam que protocolos ou diretrizes eram necessários, e 74% tinham assinaturas de uma revista médica. No entanto, apenas 43% apresentaram protocolos implementados em seus serviços, 93% valorizaram a experiência pessoal de um cirurgião, e 63% mostraram pouca familiaridade com a interpretação de conceitos científicos na literatura. Entre os respondentes, 83% estavam dispostos a tentar uma alternativa de tratamento inovador se este demonstrasse melhorar os resultados clínicos e reduzir as complicações graves.

Conclusões A disparidade nas respostas destaca a necessidade de implementar recomendações que melhorem os mecanismos de tomada de decisão.

Keywords

neurosurgery - evidence-based medicine - source of information - decision-making

Palavras-chave

neurocirurgia - medicina baseada em evidências - fonte de informação - tomada de decisões
 

  • References

  • 1 Lee K. The Philosophical Foundations of Modern Medicine. London: Polgrave Macmillan; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Ziewacz JE, McGirt MJ, Chewning Jr SJ. Adverse events in neurosurgery and their relationship to quality improvement. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2015; 26 (02) 157-165 , vii
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Solomon MJ, Laxamana A, Devore L, McLeod RS. Randomized controlled trials in surgery. Surgery 1994; 115 (06) 707-712
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 https://pt.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=AZYhti6WuHOf_2FDJxGGyyXFmhOSKoFw2yoZDLJ3mQdUG6S2a_2FbQFn3zo5oLM9RSrz
    PubMed
  • 5 Medeiros LR, Stein A. Medicina baseada em evidências e análise de decisão na clínica cirúrgica. Revista AMRIGS 2001; 45 (1,2): 45-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Barker II FG. Editorial: Randomized clinical trials and neurosurgery. J Neurosurg 2016; 124 (02) 552-556 , discussion 556–557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Olson PR, Bronner KK, Fisher ES, Morgan TS. United States' trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992-2003. Spine 2006; 31 (23) 2707-2714
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Agazzi E, Faye J. The Problem of the Unity of Science. London: World Scientific; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Dantas AK. Avaliação do aprendizado em técnica cirúrgica empregando três estratégias de ensino. [Thesis]. São Paulo: Faculdade de Odontologia da Universidade de São Paulo; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Heros RC. Randomized clinical trials. J Neurosurg 2011; 114 (02) 277-278 , discussion 278–279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Schöller K, Licht S, Tonn JC, Uhl E. Randomized controlled trials in neurosurgery–how good are we?. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2009; 151 (05) 519-527 , discussion 527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Vranos G, Tatsioni A, Polyzoidis K, Ioannidis JP. Randomized trials of neurosurgical interventions: a systematic appraisal. Neurosurgery 2004; 55 (01) 18-25 , discussion 25–26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gusmão SS, Souza JG. História da Neurocirurgia no Brasil. São Paulo: Sociedade de Neurocirurgia do Brasil; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Kongsved SM, Basnov M, Holm-Christensen K, Hjollund NH. Response rate and completeness of questionnaires: a randomized study of Internet versus paper-and-pencil versions. J Med Internet Res 2007; 9 (03) e25
    Google Scholar
  • 15 VanGeest JB, Johnson TP, Welch VL. Methodologies for improving response rates in surveys of physicians: a systematic review. Eval Health Prof 2007; 30 (04) 303-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gasque KCGD. O papel da experiência na aprendizagem: perspectivas na busca e no uso da informação. Transinformacao 2008; 20 (02) 149-158
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Traynelis VC. The geometry of education: patterns for growth. Clin Neurosurg 2005; 52: 1-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Isolan GR. A construção do conhecimento pelo jovem neurocirurgião: ética, ciência e a importância do treinamento em laboratório de microcirurgia. J Bras Neurocirurg 2009; 20 (03) 314-334
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gomes MM. Medicina baseada em evidências: princípios e práticas. Rio de Janeiro: Reichmann & Affonso; 2001: 1-13
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Schanaider A. Cirurgia baseada em evidências: modismo ou necessidade?. Acta Cir Bras 2002; 17 (01) 71-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Black N. Evidence-based surgery: A passing fad?. World J Surg 1999; 23 (08) 789-793
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Gomes LF. Educação Médica Contínua em MGF. Rev Port Clin Geral 2003; 19: 89
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 O'Brien BJ, Heyland D, Richardson WS, Levine M, Drummond MF. Users' guides to the medical literature. XIII. How to use an article on economic analysis of clinical practice. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1997; 277 (22) 1802-1806
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer EA. The pros and cons of evidence-based surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 1999; 384 (05) 423-431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Santos P, Martins C, Sá L, Hespanhol A, Couto L. Motives for requesting an electrocardiogram in primary health care. Cien Saude Colet 2015; 20 (05) 1549-1554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Santos P, Nazaré I, Martins C, Sá L, Couto L, Hespanhol A. As Normas de Orientação Clínica em Portugal e os Valores dos Doentes. Acta Med Port 2015; 28 (06) 754-759
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Altman DG. Melhor relato de ensaios controlados randomizados: a declaração CONSORT. BMJ 1996; 313: 570-571
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S. , et al. Melhorar a qualidade da notificação de ensaios controlados aleatórios: a declaração CONSORT. JAMA 1996; 276: 637-639
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Can OS, Yilmaz AA, Hasdogan M. , et al. Has the quality of abstracts for randomised controlled trials improved since the release of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial guideline for abstract reporting? A survey of four high-profile anaesthesia journals. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011; 28 (07) 485-492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Cândido DNC, Barbosa FT. Qualidade dos ensaios clínicos aleatórios em Neurocirurgia publicados no Brasil. Arq Bras Neurocir 2009; 28 (02) 43-47
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Mansouri A, Cooper B, Shin SM, Kondziolka D. Randomized controlled trials and neurosurgery: the ideal fit or should alternative methodologies be considered?. J Neurosurg 2016; 124 (02) 558-568
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Pappa M. , et al. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA 2001; 286 (07) 821-830
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Haines SJ. Randomized clinical trials in neurosurgery. Neurosurgery 1983; 12 (03) 259-264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Califf RM, Robb MA, Bindman AB. , et al. Transforming Evidence Generation to Support Health and Health Care Decisions. N Engl J Med 2016; 375 (24) 2395-2400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Vollmar B. [Research as attractiveness parameter for young surgeons]. Chirurg 2012; 83 (04) 319-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Gittes GK. The surgeon-scientist in a new biomedical research era. Surgery 2006; 140 (02) 123-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Menger MD, Schilling MK, Schäfers HJ, Pohlemann T, Laschke MW. How to ensure the survival of the surgeon-scientist? The Homburg Program. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2012; 397 (04) 619-622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar