Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25081371›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2014

A Delphi survey to determine how educational interventions for evidence-based practice should be reported: stage 2 of the development of a reporting guideline.

Anna C Phillips, Lucy K Lewis, Maureen P McEvoy, James Galipeau, Paul Glasziou, Marilyn Hammick, David Moher, Julie K Tilson, Marie T Williams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Development and validation of a job aid: Tool to reduce infections in home-based stroke.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Delphi consensus recommendations for a treatment algorithm in pulmonary sarcoidosis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2020
    Review
  13. Management of repository corticotrophin injection therapy for pulmonary sarcoidosis: a Delphi study.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Anna C PhillipsSchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, GPO box 2471, Adelaide 5001, Australia. anna.phillips@mymail.unisa.edu.au.
Lucy K Lewis
Maureen P McEvoy
James Galipeau
Paul Glasziou
Marilyn Hammick
David Moher
Julie K Tilson
Marie T Williams

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUndertaking a Delphi exercise is recommended during the second stage in the development process for a reporting guideline. To continue the development for the Guideline for Reporting Evidence-based practice Educational interventions and Teaching (GREET) a Delphi survey was undertaken to determine the consensus opinion of researchers, journal editors and educators in evidence-based practice (EBP) regarding the information items that should be reported when describing an educational intervention for EBP.

methodsA four round online Delphi survey was conducted from October 2012 to March 2013. The Delphi panel comprised international researchers, educators and journal editors in EBP. Commencing with an open-ended question, participants were invited to volunteer information considered important when reporting educational interventions for EBP. Over three subsequent rounds participants were invited to rate the importance of each of the Delphi items using an 11 point Likert rating scale (low 0 to 4, moderate 5 to 6, high 7 to 8 and very high >8). Consensus agreement was set a priori as at least 80 per cent participant agreement. Consensus agreement was initially calculated within the four categories of importance (low to very high), prior to these four categories being merged into two (<7 and ≥7). Descriptive statistics for each item were computed including the mean Likert scores, standard deviation (SD), range and median participant scores. Mean absolute deviation from the median (MAD-M) was also calculated as a measure of participant disagreement.

resultsThirty-six experts agreed to participate and 27 (79%) participants completed all four rounds. A total of 76 information items were generated across the four survey rounds. Thirty-nine items (51%) were specific to describing the intervention (as opposed to other elements of study design) and consensus agreement was achieved for two of these items (5%). When the four rating categories were merged into two (<7 and ≥7), 18 intervention items achieved consensus agreement.

conclusionThis Delphi survey has identified 39 items for describing an educational intervention for EBP. These Delphi intervention items will provide the groundwork for the subsequent consensus discussion to determine the final inclusion of items in the GREET, the first reporting guideline for educational interventions in EBP.

Indexed as

ConsensusData CollectionDelphi TechniqueEvidence-Based PracticeFemaleGuidelines as TopicHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID25081371
PMCPMC4128547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.