Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11686986›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2001

Teaching critical appraisal skills in health care settings.

J Parkes, C Hyde, J Deeks, R Milne

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Prescribers' Knowledge and Skills for Interpreting Research Results: A Systematic Review.The Journal of continuing education in the health professions · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Critical appraisal skills training to undergraduate medical students: A Randomized Control Study.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

J ParkesHealth Care Research Unit South Academic Block, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton, Hampshire, UK, SO16 6YD. jules@soton.ac.uk
C Hyde
J Deeks
R Milne

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCritical appraisal is the process of assessing and interpreting evidence by systematically considering its validity, results and relevance to an individual's work. Within the last decade critical appraisal has been added as a topic to many medical school and UK Royal College curricula, and several continuing professional development ventures have been funded to provide further training.

objectivesTo assess the effects of teaching critical appraisal skills to health professionals, on the process of care, patient outcomes and knowledge of health professionals. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library (to Issue 2 2000), MEDLINE (1966 to 1997), EMBASE (1980 to 1997), Eric (1966 to 1997), Cinahl (1982 to 1997), Lisa (1976 to 1997), Sigle (1980 to 1997), Science Citation Index (1981 to 1997), PsycLit (1974 to 1997), the world-wide-web, and reference lists of articles. We also contacted major medical education centres. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series analyses of educational interventions teaching critical appraisal to health professionals. The outcomes were: process of care; patient mortality, quality of life, and satisfaction; and health professional knowledge/awareness based upon objective, standardised, validated instruments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and three reviewers independently assessed study quality. MAIN

resultsOne USA hospital-based randomised trial was included involving 44 doctors. The outcome assessed was critical appraisal knowledge. Process of care, patient health or attitude/awareness outcomes were not assessed. Critical appraisal teaching was reported to have resulted in a 25% improvement (adjusted figure) in critical appraisal knowledge in the intervention group compared to a 6% improvement in the control group, which was statistically significant (p=0.02). REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThere is evidence that critical appraisal teaching has positive effects on participants' knowledge, but as only one study met the inclusion criteria the validity of drawing general conclusions about the effects of teaching critical appraisal is debatable. There are large gaps in the evidence as to whether teaching critical appraisal impacts on decision-making or patient outcomes. It is also unclear whether the size of benefit seen is large enough to be of practical significance, or whether this varies according to participant background or teaching method. The evidence supporting all outcomes is weakened by the generally poorly designed, executed and reported studies that we found.

Indexed as

Professional CompetenceTeachingDecision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineHumansResearch Design

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.