Skip to main content


Awareness and use of the Cochrane Library in internal medicine

Date and Location




Monday 23 September 2013 - 10:30 - 12:00


Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author

Solange Rivera

Contact person

Solange Rivera
Abstract text
Background: Systematic Reviews (SR) are a fundamental tool for practicing Evidence Based Medicine. Since 1993 the Cochrane Collaboration’s mission is to produce SRs. However, awareness and use of Cochrane SR, varies in different countries and specialties. Objectives: To describe the level of awareness and use of Cochrane RS among internists. Methods: Among participants to the XXXI World Conference of Internal Medicine (WCIM) held in Santiago, Chile on November 2012, we recruit volunteers to reply an online survey consisting of 12 questions regarding awareness, access and uses of Cochrane SRs. Results: 413 attendants to WCIM volunteered to participate on our survey; 202 (48,9%) replied. Responders were from 27 countries, 117 (57%) were chileans, 71 (34%) from other latinoamerican countries and 16 (8 %) were non latinoamericans. (North America, Europe and Oceania). 103 (51%) were Internists or internal medicine subespecialists, 53(26,2%) were residents, 33 (16,3%) undergraduate students and 13 (6,4%) other specialties. Most of them worked in hospitals (78%) and one third worked in an academic setting. 94% of responders report using SRs for decision making, of these 98,5% use Cochrane SRs and 98,8% considered them useful or very useful for healthcare decision. Frequency of Cochrane SRs use was once a week in 21%, at least once a month in 54,5% and 16% twice a year. The most common reasons to use Cochrane SRs were: clinical decision making (67.6%), keeping up to date (64.2%), teaching purposes (32%) and research (27%). Access to Cochrane SR was through Institutional affiliation in 44,9%, 38,1% use free access through Cochrane Library Plus, only 2,8% pays for personal access. Conclusions: Our survey shows that most internists use CL SRs very frequently, mostly for clinical decision making or updating purposes and considered them useful or very useful. Regarding access options, the most frequent was institutional affiliation.