BACKGROUND A gap between the attitude towards evidence-based medicine (EBM), knowledge and awareness has been reported among physicians from different parts of the world. However, no investigation on Romanian physicians is available in the scientific literature. Our study aimed, firstly, to assess EBM awareness and the knowledge used by Romanian physicians, and, secondly, to compare resident trainees with specialists. METHODS Romanian trainee and specialist physicians were invited to participate in this cross-sectional study. The study tool was an online questionnaire designed to explore their awareness, knowledge, usefulness, the attitude in medical documentation, and the use of professional EBM resources. Data were collected by Google Form from January 1st to April 30th, 2017, respecting the responders' anonymity. Two groups of physicians were investigated as trainees and specialists, respectively. Descriptive statistics (number, percentage, median and interquartile range) was used to describe the survey-related variables. Statistical significance on qualitative data was calculated with the Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, or the Z-test for proportions. RESULTS Two hundred and 50 physicians participated in this study (68% trainees vs. 32% specialists). In both groups, a significantly high percentage was represented by women as compared to men (trainees 72.4%, specialists 70%). The correct definition of EBM was identified by most respondents (75.6%). Affirmatively, both trainees and specialists always looked at levels of evidence when reading scientific literature, but a small percentage (6.5% trainees and 3% specialists) adequately identified the uppermost types of evidence in the hierarchy. Almost a quarter of the respondents shared the name of mobile EBM resources that they used to support the daily practice. Only six out of the 49 listed mobile resources met the EBM criteria. CONCLUSIONS The participants proved to have limited knowledge of EBM and a positive attitude towards the concept. They made use of mobile medical resources without understanding which of these were evidence-based.

中文翻译：

---

循证医学自我评估，知识和融入日常实践：罗马尼亚医生的调查以及受训人员和专家之间的比较。

背景技术已经报道了来自世界各地的医师对循证医学（EBM）的态度，知识和意识之间的差距。但是，科学文献中没有有关罗马尼亚医生的调查。我们的研究首先是要评估EBM意识和罗马尼亚医师使用的知识，其次是将常驻学员与专家进行比较。方法邀请罗马尼亚见习生和专科医生参加这项横断面研究。该研究工具是一种在线问卷，旨在探讨他们的意识，知识，有用性，医学文献中的态度以及专业EBM资源的使用。Google表单于2017年1月1日至4月30日收集了数据，同时尊重了响应者的匿名性。两组医师分别作为受训者和专家接受了调查。描述性统计数据（数量，百分比，中位数和四分位数范围）用于描述与调查相关的变量。使用卡方检验，Fisher精确检验或比例的Z检验计算定性数据的统计显着性。结果共有250名医师参加了本研究（受训者中68％，专家占32％）。在两组中，女性代表的比例均明显高于男性（受训人员为72.4％，专科人员为70％）。大多数受访者（75.6％）确定了正确的循证医学定义。肯定的是，受训人员和专家在阅读科学文献时总是关注证据水平，但是比例很小（6。5％的受训者和3％的专家）充分确定了层次结构中最重要的证据类型。近四分之一的受访者分享了他们用来支持日常实践的移动EBM资源的名称。在列出的49种移动资源中，只有6种符合EBM标准。结论参与者被证明对EBM的知识有限，并对这一概念持积极态度。他们利用移动医疗资源，但不了解其中哪些是循证医学。