ArticlePloS one2024
Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of Persian version of Evidence Based Medicine Questionnaire (EBMQ) in postgraduate medical students in Iran.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence Based Medicine Questionnaire (EBMQ) was developed to assess the knowledge, practice and barriers towards the implementation of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM). This study aimed to translate, cross-culturally adapt and psychometrically validate the Persian version of EBMQ.
methodsThis was an analytical cross sectional study. The EBMQ underwent translation and cross-cultural adaptation following best practices. Face validity was assessed by a panel of five experts. The content validity index (CVI) and content validity ratio (CVR) were evaluated by 15 experts who were familiar with EBM. The tool's internal consistency and test-retest reliability over a 2-week period were evaluated using Cronbach's α and intra-class correlation (ICC), respectively. To assess construct validity, the questionnaire was completed by 400 medical students. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used for construct validity assessment. All analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS v.24 and AMOS v.24. A significance level of 5% was considered.
resultsThe CVR for 40 items was higher than 0.62, and their CVI score was 1.0, indicating good content validity. The scale demonstrated acceptable internal consistency and test-retest reliability (n = 30) with an ICC of 0.909 (95% CI: 0.866 to 0.941), and an overall alpha coefficient of 0.957. The structural validity was established through exploratory factor analysis (Bartlett's test p<0.001; the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index = 0.862), and it was further confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis. A three-factor solution with 40 items, explaining 51.610% of the variance, exhibited the best fit indices Chi-square statistics/df = 4.23; RMSEA = 0.08; CFI = 0.95; NFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.92).
conclusionThe Persian version of the EBMQ was a reliable and valid tool that could be utilized to assess the knowledge, practice and barriers of EBM for physicians in Persian language countries.
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.