Trial reportBMC medical informatics and decision making2001
Improving question formulation for use in evidence appraisal in a tertiary care setting: a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN66375463].
Trial report in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness of educational interventions for improving healthcare professionals' information literacy: A systematic review.Health information and libraries journal · 2025Pooled it
- Collaborative Care Models to Improve Pain and Reduce Opioid Use in Primary Care: a Systematic Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Pooled it
- A systematic review of how studies describe educational interventions for evidence-based practice: stage 1 of the development of a reporting guideline.BMC medical education · 2014Pooled it
- Interventions to improve question formulation in professional practice and self-directed learning.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010Pooled it
- Evidence based practice in postgraduate healthcare education: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2007Pooled it
- Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2007Trial
- Priority Musculoskeletal Health Research Questions for People With Generalized Joint Hypermobility: An International Delphi Study.Arthritis care & research · 2025Article
- New opportunities and challenges for conservation evidence synthesis from advances in natural language processing.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Top 10 palliative care research priorities in France: a 3-step, mixed-methods protocol (AXEPRO study).BMJ open · 2025Article
- Building an implementation framework to address unmet contraceptive care needs in a carceral setting: a systematic review.Health & justice · 2023Article
- Mental health status and coping strategies of Chinese university students during the COVID-19 pandemic: A rapid review.PloS one · 2023Review
- Question formulation skills training using a novel rubric with first-year medical students.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
- Effect of Ankle Joint Mobilization with Movement on Range of Motion, Balance and Gait Function in Chronic Stroke Survivors: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Degenerative neurological and neuromuscular disease · 2021Review
- Using an Entrustable Professional Activity to Assess Consultation Requests Called on an Internal Medicine Teaching Service.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2019Review
- A data-driven concept schema for defining clinical research data needs.International journal of medical informatics · 2016Article
- Facilitating biomedical researchers' interrogation of electronic health record data: Ideas from outside of biomedical informatics.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2016Review
- Effectiveness of national evidence-based medicine competition in Taiwan.BMC medical education · 2013Article
- Complex interventions required to comprehensively educate allied health practitioners on evidence-based practice.Advances in medical education and practice · 2011Article
- Using the Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) database: how do clinicians really search?Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe specificity of clinical questions is gauged by explicit descriptions of four dimensions: subjects, interventions, comparators and outcomes of interest. This study determined whether adding simple instructions and examples on clinical question formulation would increase the specificity of the submitted question compared to using a standard form without instructions and examples.
methodsA randomised controlled trial was conducted in an evidence-search and appraisal service. New participants were invited to reformulate clinical queries. The Control Group was given no instructions. The Intervention Group was given a brief explanation of proper formulation, written instructions, and diagrammatic examples. The primary outcome was the change in the proportion of reformulated questions that described each the dimensions of specificity.
resultsFifty-two subjects agreed to participate in the trial of which 13 were lost to follow-up. The remaining 17 Intervention Group and 22 Control Group participants were analysed. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Overall, 20% of initially submitted questions from both groups were properly specified (defined as an explicit statement describing all dimensions of specificity). On follow-up, 7/14 questions previously rated as mis-specified in the Intervention Group had all dimensions described at follow-up (p = 0.008) while the Control Group did not show any changes from baseline. Participants in the Intervention Group were also more likely to explicitly describe patients (p = 0.028), comparisons (p = 0.014), and outcomes (p = 0.008).
conclusionsThis trial demonstrated the positive impact of specific instructions on the proportion of properly-specified clinical queries. The evaluation of the long-term impact of such changes is an area of continued research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.