ArticleBMC medical education2023
Use of simulation scenarios and vote cards in teaching critical appraisal concepts in evidence-based medicine.
Article in BMC medical education, 2023. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe most effective method of teaching critical appraisal concepts remains unclear. We used simulation scenarios in a Risk-of-Bias (RoB) 2.0 framework to teach the various biases that may affect randomized controlled trials and assessed whether including this interactive session in an evidence-based medicine (EBM) course for third-year preclinical medical students can optimize their understanding of critical appraisal concepts.
methodsThe session had 13 modules, each corresponding to a particular risk of bias in RoB 2.0. Each module included a simulated scenario, followed by data presentation and a generalized conclusion. The students were subsequently asked to use colored vote cards to indicate whether they agreed, had some concern, or disagreed with the conclusion and to justify their answers. On the basis of the students' answers, the facilitator debriefed the scenario and addressed the specific bias. In each module, the students were required to demonstrate critical thinking in analyzing the claims and quality of the supporting evidence and in justifying their decisions, thus conceptualizing their understanding of research biases.
resultsWe included 306 students across two pilot sessions in spring 2020 and 2021, and the response rate was 97.4%. The students were least able to discern the following problems: baseline imbalances when assessing allocation bias (correct answers: 9.06%), missing outcome data when assessing attrition bias (correct answers: 11.65%), and balanced nonprotocol interventions when assessing performance bias (correct answers: 14.88%). The postcourse survey revealed several aspects of the interactive session that the students appreciated or found challenging.
conclusionPreclinical medical students generally appreciated the inclusion of simulation scenarios and vote cards in an EBM course. The use of vote cards facilitated medical students' understanding of critical appraisal concepts, uncovered areas that they found challenging to understand, and encouraged their active participation. Such interactive sessions should be increasingly included in medical 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.