ArticleBMC medical education2022
Reliability and validity of the Persian version of the ACE tool: assessing medical trainees' competency in evidence-based medicine.
Article in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Game-based blended learning versus traditional lecture for evidence-based medicine (EBM) competencies in undergraduate medical students: a quasi-experimental study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Validity and Reliability of the Japanese Version of the ACE Tool for Assessing Evidence-based Medicine Competencies in Medical Practitioners and Students: An Evaluation in an Online Setting.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a questionnaire for laboratory medicine knowledge and attitudes in clinical medical interns.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence-based medicine (EBM) allows users to integrate evidence into decision-making alongside clinical expertise and patient values. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Persian version of the Assessing Competency in EBM (ACE) tool across knowledge, skills, and attitude.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was performed on medical residents (first-year residents and junior residents) of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in 2019. The study instrument was the ACE tool which consists of 15 two-choice questions (yes-no) and each of these questions measures one of four steps in evidence-based medicine (1- asking the answerable question, 2- searching the literature, 3- critical appraisal, and 4- applying the evidence to scenario). This tool was translated into Persian according to international standards. To ensure that the original and translated ACE questionnaire can be matched accurately and conceptuality, content validity index (CVI) and content validity ratio (CVR) were determined. Cronbach's alpha was applied to determine the internal consistency for each scale and Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to survey the factor structure validity.
resultsOne hundred sixty-three questionnaires were studied, selecting 59 first-year medical residents and 104 s-year medical residents. The results showed that using the Persian translation of the ACE tools, the content validity index (CVI) values were equal to or above 0.8 for all items. The content validity ratio (CVR) value was 0.90 for the total scale. The indicators of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the ACE tool revealed that this model had an acceptable fit. Cronbach's alpha for the overall score was 0.79.
conclusionThe Persian translated version of the ACE tool is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing medical trainees' competency in EBM.
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.