When reading a cardiology journal, do you prefer paper journals or would you rather visit a website?

I like receiving e-mail alerts straight to my inbox, as I then get to hear about the latest study results very quickly. I find the summary information and the expert commentary a useful way to get a 'potted summary'. Quite often my paper journals sit in their plastic wrapper for a while. Going to the library is time consuming, and most journal reading is done on trains, planes, or late at night.

How does product information published prior to an event influence your attendance of a cardiology congress?

If I know something is coming up that is likely to change practice, or answer a particular clinical question, I would be more likely to attend anyway. It is always useful to have background knowledge beforehand, as it allows you to concentrate on the results and how they can be applied to clinical practice, rather than having to concentrate on study design and so on.

After visiting a congress, what kind of articles are you most likely to read? Do you actively search for articles on presentations or product launches which you have not witnessed first hand?

I find webcasts of the results very useful. For example, I was not able to attend the European Stroke Conference last month, so I looked at the webcasts and slides for some important studies such as ProFESS, which would potentially have had a major impact on practice if clopidogrel had been shown to be superior to aspirin or dipyridamole. It wasn't, so our protocols don't need to change. It is important to have easy access to these reports, as very often the first time you become aware of them is when they are reported in the press. Patients are much more aware than they used to be, so it is important to be able to justify why you are or are not prescribing a particular therapy. In addition, if a product is positively reported in the media following a conference presentation, but the article has not been published or the webcast is unavailable, you have to be very cautious in discussing with and prescribing medication to patients.

In your opinion, how could trade magazines make the media coverage of cardiology congresses more interesting?

I definitely support webcasts, and unbiased interpretation of study results by an independent expert, available online. This helps the overburdened clinician (like me!) to be able to translate the findings into clinical practice. Guidelines and protocols can sometimes take as long as turning the Titanic to reflect important changes in best clinical practice, so a reliable commentary available at the click of a mouse is definitely beneficial.

Is there anything else you would like to add regarding media coverage of cardiology congresses?

It can be frustrating to learn about study results in the media, but not have access to the original data or else find that the paper has not yet been published. This means that it is not possible to independently scrutinise the results, and peer review is a reassuring safety net for clinicians. So the ideal scenario would be for papers to be published alongside or straight after conference presentations. And of course 'negative' studies, where there is no commercial interest in promoting the results, may be very important in terms of clinical practice and therefore should be publicised. (AG)