ArticleBMC medical education2024
A peer teaching module for medical residents on critical appraisal of medical articles: context and pilot testing.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ability of healthcare providers to access and use published research correctly is crucial for the quality of healthcare services, enabling selection of the most effective treatment modalities, and avoidance of medical errors. Physicians need strong critical appraisal (CA) skills to manage rapidly evolving medical knowledge.
methodsA standard peer-teaching module was prepared for medical residents on CA. The module included topic-specific educational materials, discussion articles, and question sets and was pilot-tested among medical residents, allowing for revisions based on participants' feedback. Training module was prepared by a senior epidemiologist and a community medicine (public health) resident, based on the context of a similar graduate course; the resident underwent four months of personal training preceding the pilot testing, which was conducted as a 12-week program in September-November 2023, supervised by experts. Online training extended our reach to resident working nationwide. Recruitment was enabled via social media and various medical specialty organizations. Evaluations included initial, session-specific, and final tests for measuring progress in knowledge on CA, based on participants' self-assessments, and external auditors' scoring of the process.
resultsA total of 52 residents from 19 universities and nine specialty programs participated in pilot testing. Of these, 48 completed the program through the post-test, with 83% (n = 40) scoring above 65%, received a certificate of achievement. Median scores showed a 32% increase in knowledge, a 75% increase in confidence in CA skills, and a 50% decrease in stress-related to CA practice. Additionally, 82.5% (n = 33) of those who completed the module expressed interest in offering similar training sessions to their local peers.
conclusionThe online peer teaching of the CA module successfully increased participants' knowledge and self-confidence in critical appraisal. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.