Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36289534›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2022

Methods of teaching evidence-based practice: a systematic review.

Bethany Howard, Basia Diug, Dragan Ilic

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Integrating Practice-Changing Studies in Gynaecologic Oncology Through Clinical Illustrations.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Supply of Lato Sensu Postgraduate courses in medicine in Brazil.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2025
    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

3 authors.

Bethany HowardMedical Education Research & Quality (MERQ) Unit, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 1, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Basia DiugMedical Education Research & Quality (MERQ) Unit, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 1, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Dragan IlicMedical Education Research & Quality (MERQ) Unit, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 1, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. dragan.ilic@monash.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo identify the effectiveness of different teaching modalities on student evidence-based practice (EBP) competency.

methodsElectronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, A + Education and AEI through to November 2021. We included randomised-controlled trials comparing EBP teaching modes on EBP knowledge, skills, attitudes or behaviour in undergraduate and post-graduate health professions education. Risk of bias was determined using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

resultsTwenty-one studies were included in the review. Overall, no single teaching modality was identified as being superior to others at significantly increasing learner competency in EBP. Changes in learner knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour were conflicting, with studies either reporting no change, or a moderate increase in EBP behavioural outcomes when directly compared to another intervention.

conclusionCurrent evidence highlights the lack of a single teaching modality that is superior than others regarding learner competency in EBP, regardless of health professions discipline or graduate status. The poor quality, heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures limited conclusions. Further research should focus on the development of high-quality studies and use of psychometrically validated tools to further explore the impact of different EBP teaching modalities.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticeHealth OccupationsHumansStudentsTeachingEvidence-based medicineEvidence-based practiceMedical educationSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36289534
PMCPMC9607697

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.