Skip to main content

Archived Comments for: A randomized trial to assess the impact of opinion leader endorsed evidence summaries on the use of secondary prevention strategies in patients with coronary artery disease: the ESP-CAD trial protocol [NCT00175240]

Back to article

  1. Effect of Clinicians' Active Involvement

    Barbara Simon, HSRD Center of Excellence, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System

    10 May 2006

    This is a well designed study comparing a signed "Local Opinion Leader Statement" to an "Unsigned Evidence Statement" (plus a third “usual care” arm). The two Statements (provided as additional files associated with the main manuscript file) are highly readable and compelling. It was not until I reached the end of each Statement, however, that I became aware that CME credit was offered as an incentive for reading the Statement, and that CME credit would be provided only if the clinician actively requested it.

    The "active involvement" needed to obtain CME credit may distinguish clinicians who are more receptive (relative to clinicians not requesting CME credit) to opinion leader influence or evidence-based recommendations and have been more activated to implement them. Involvement of this sort may also contribute to better recall of the recommendations. You might consider analyzing the CME group separately to evaluate the effect of the CME incentive, and commenting on this feature of the Statements in interpreting and reporting your findings

    Competing interests

    No Competing Interest