File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Conference Paper: Evidence-based practice in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Audit of one training center

TitleEvidence-based practice in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Audit of one training center
Authors
Issue Date2006
PublisherChurchill Livingstone. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jcms
Citation
The XVIIIth Congress of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Barcelona, Spain, 12–15 September 2006. In Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, 2006, v. 34 n. S1, p. 129 Abstract no. O.479 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: To evaluate the proportion of evidence-based interventions in the field of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMS) in a regional training centre. We also evaluated the levels of evidence present in the OMS literature, and the current availability of evidence in various diagnostic categories. Methods: A prospective clinical audit was carried out within the discipline of OMS, University of Hong Kong, in February 2005, for a period of six months to investigate the extent of evidencebased practice. Consecutive diagnosis and intervention pairs were identified and recorded through standardized charts in randomly selected clinical sessions. A corresponding literature search using Medline and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify best current evidence, then analysed and graded according to the evidence. Results: Two hundred and seventy three out of 500 cases were eligible for evaluation while the rest were excluded based on four defined exclusion criteria. A majority of interventions (n = 195, 71.4%) were found to be evidence based. Seventy eight (28.6%) interventions were found to be not evidence based. Among the evidence, a majority (56.1%) were level 5 which are mainly case series, and 36% were level 3 or above, which are randomized control trial (RCT) (level 3), meta-analysis of RCTs (level 2) or systematic review of RCTs (level 1). There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of evidence-based practice between specialists and trainees in OMS who treated the patients. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that most interventions prescribed in this OMS training centre were evidence based and the proportion was comparable to that reported by other specialties.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/93983
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.592
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.010

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLau, A.en_HK
dc.contributor.authorSamman, Nen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-25T15:17:53Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-25T15:17:53Z-
dc.date.issued2006en_HK
dc.identifier.citationThe XVIIIth Congress of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Barcelona, Spain, 12–15 September 2006. In Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, 2006, v. 34 n. S1, p. 129 Abstract no. O.479en_HK
dc.identifier.issn1010-5182en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/93983-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To evaluate the proportion of evidence-based interventions in the field of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMS) in a regional training centre. We also evaluated the levels of evidence present in the OMS literature, and the current availability of evidence in various diagnostic categories. Methods: A prospective clinical audit was carried out within the discipline of OMS, University of Hong Kong, in February 2005, for a period of six months to investigate the extent of evidencebased practice. Consecutive diagnosis and intervention pairs were identified and recorded through standardized charts in randomly selected clinical sessions. A corresponding literature search using Medline and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify best current evidence, then analysed and graded according to the evidence. Results: Two hundred and seventy three out of 500 cases were eligible for evaluation while the rest were excluded based on four defined exclusion criteria. A majority of interventions (n = 195, 71.4%) were found to be evidence based. Seventy eight (28.6%) interventions were found to be not evidence based. Among the evidence, a majority (56.1%) were level 5 which are mainly case series, and 36% were level 3 or above, which are randomized control trial (RCT) (level 3), meta-analysis of RCTs (level 2) or systematic review of RCTs (level 1). There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of evidence-based practice between specialists and trainees in OMS who treated the patients. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that most interventions prescribed in this OMS training centre were evidence based and the proportion was comparable to that reported by other specialties.-
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherChurchill Livingstone. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jcmsen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgeryen_HK
dc.titleEvidence-based practice in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Audit of one training centeren_HK
dc.typeConference_Paperen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=1010-5182&volume=34&spage=Suppl S1, p. 129&epage=&date=2006&atitle=Evidence-based+practice+in+oral+and+maxillofacial+surgery.++Audit+of+one+training+centre.++18th+Congress+of+the+European+Association+for+Craniomaxillofacial+Surgery,+September+2006,+Barcelona,+Spainen_HK
dc.identifier.emailSamman, N: nsamman@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authoritySamman, N=rp00021en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/S1010-5182(06)60499-X-
dc.identifier.hkuros127654en_HK
dc.identifier.volume34en_HK
dc.identifier.issueS1-
dc.identifier.spage129-
dc.identifier.epage129-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats