Background Although studies have documented that randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) have a measurable influence on clinical practice, investigators have uncovered important deficiencies in the application of RCT findings to the management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
Little is known about the extent to which physicians who design and/or implement clinical trials differ from physicians in routine practice in their translation of the literature.
Methods Our aims were to (1) evaluate recent trends in selected treatments of AMI in relation to the publication of RCTs, statistical overviews, and task-force guidelines, and (2) compare prescribing practices in AMI management between physicians in routine clinical practice and physicians who design and/or implement RCTs.
We reviewed the use of aspirin, bêta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and calcium channel blockers on entry and at discharge in patients enrolled in the MILIS, TIMI 1,2,4,5,6, and 9B trials with ST-elevation (and depression in MILIS) myocardial infarction for a period approaching 2 decades (August 1978 to September 1995).
We hypothesized that physicians who participate in RCTs apply the findings of the published literature more promptly and thoroughly than physicians in routine practice. (...)
Mots-clés Pascal : Infarctus, Myocarde, Homme, Pratique professionnelle, Médecin, Traitement, Chimiothérapie, Essai thérapeutique contrôlé, Prescription médicale, Etude comparative, Formation professionnelle, Appareil circulatoire pathologie, Cardiopathie coronaire, Myocarde pathologie
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Infarct, Myocardium, Human, Professional practice, Physician, Treatment, Chemotherapy, Controlled therapeutic trial, Medical prescription, Comparative study, Occupational training, Cardiovascular disease, Coronary heart disease, Myocardial disease
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 99-0079086
Code Inist : 002B12A03. Création : 31/05/1999.