ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2022
Adapting SQUIRE 2.0 to Create a Quality Improvement Evidence-Based Medicine Critical Appraisal Tool (QI-EBM-CAT) for Graduate Medical Education Trainees.
Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Stewardship of Respiratory Cultures Using Clinical Decision Support in the PICU.JAMA network open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has long been taught to physician trainees for critical appraisal of research manuscripts. There is no parallel or similar framework to guide trainees in the appraisal of quality improvement (QI) literature. Objective: To adapt existing guidelines of QI manuscript reporting into an educational QI-EBM appraisal tool to help residents distinguish research and QI manuscripts, assess QI designs and methodologies, and evaluate QI manuscripts' strengths and weaknesses. Methods: Between 2018 and 2021, we developed a QI-EBM critical appraisal tool (QI-EBM-CAT) and performed 3 plan-do-study-act cycles to refine the tool based on JAMA and SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines. We then surveyed residents regarding the usefulness of the tool and their confidence in evaluating QI manuscripts before and after completing a QI-EBM workshop using the QI appraisal tool. Results: Sixty-six of 74 internal medicine postgraduate year (PGY)-1 to PGY-3 residents (89.2%) completed the workshop and assessment surveys in 2021. The workshop was found to be moderately to very useful by 85.1% (63 of 74) of residents as a framework for QI manuscript critical analysis. The summary confidence score in QI manuscript critical appraisal improved from a 64% rating of moderately to very confident in the pre-period to 94.6% in the post-period ( Conclusions: The QI-EBM-CAT, designed to teach residents how to critically assess QI manuscripts using EBM principles, resulted in subjective improvements in confidence of QI manuscript analysis.
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.