ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2020
Development and Validation of a Test for Competence in Evidence-Based Medicine.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomized Controlled Trial of Clinical Guidelines Versus Interactive Decision-Support for Improving Medical Trainees' Confidence with Latent Tuberculosis Care.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Trial
- Assessing for Practice-Based Learning and Improvement: Distinguishing Evidence-Based Practice From Reflective Learning.Journal of graduate medical education · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical educators need valid, reliable, and efficient tools to assess evidence-based medicine (EBM) knowledge and skills. Available EBM assessment tools either do not assess skills or are laborious to grade.
objectiveTo validate a multiple-choice-based EBM test-the Resident EBM Skills Evaluation Tool (RESET).
designCross-sectional study.
participantsA total of 304 medicine residents from five training programs and 33 EBM experts comprised the validation cohort. MAIN MEASURES: Internal reliability, item difficulty, and item discrimination were assessed. Construct validity was assessed by comparing mean total scores of trainees to experts. Experts were also asked to rate importance of each test item to assess content validity. KEY
resultsExperts had higher total scores than trainees (35.6 vs. 29.4, P < 0.001) and also scored significantly higher than residents on 11/18 items. Cronbach's alpha was 0.6 (acceptable), and no items had a low item-total correlation. Item difficulty ranged from 7 to 86%. All items were deemed "important" by > 50% of experts.
conclusionsThe proposed EBM assessment tool is a reliable and valid instrument to assess competence in EBM. It is easy to administer and grade and could be used to guide and assess interventions in EBM education.
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.