Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16208393›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2005

Integrating evidence-based teaching into to clinical practice should improve outcomes.

Derek Richards

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Derek RichardsCentre for Evidence-based Dentistry, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

data sourcesSources used were Medline, Embase, the Education Resources Information Centre , Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment database, Best Evidence, Best Evidence Medical Education and Science Citation Index, along with reference lists of known systematic reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were chosen for inclusion if they evaluated the effects of postgraduate evidence-based medicine (EBM) or critical appraisal teaching in comparison with a control group or baseline before teaching, using a measure of participants' learning achievements or patients' health gains as outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Articles were graded as either level 1 (randomised controlled trials (RCT)) or level 2 (non-randomised studies that either had a comparison with a control group), or a before and after comparison without a control group. Learning achievement was assessed separately for knowledge, critical appraisal skills, attitudes and behaviour. Because of obvious heterogeneity in the features of individual studies, their quality and assessment tools used, a meta-analysis could not be carried out. Conclusions were weighted by methodological quality.

resultsTwenty-three relevant studies were identified, comprising four RCT, seven non-RCT, and 12 before and after comparison studies. Eighteen studies (including two RCT) evaluated a standalone teaching method and five studies (including two RCT) evaluated a clinically integrated teaching method.

conclusionsStandalone teaching improved knowledge but not skills, attitudes or behaviour. Clinically integrated teaching improved knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour. Teaching of EBM should be moved from classrooms to clinical practice to achieve improvements in substantial outcomes.

Identifiers

PMID16208393

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.