ReviewSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina2025
Analyzing the effectivity of evidence-based practice in health science higher education: a narrative review.
Review in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina, 2025. 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
backgroundAlthough multiple strategies have been suggested for evidence-based practice educational interventions, few studies have focused on the development of abilities for evidence-based practice implementation.
objectiveTo explore the effectiveness of evidence-based practice in higher education and understand its teaching methods. DESIGN AND
settingNarrative review was conducted at the Universidade Municipal de São Caetano do Sul, Brazil.
methodsNarrative review included research studies that measured any type of evidence-based practice teaching method and its effectiveness. Searches included publications from inception to June 2022, conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ERIC, and the Cochrane Library. Two independent authors descriptively extracted and analyzed the data. The methodological quality of the studies was also analyzed.
resultsThe results determined that 79.2% of the studies proved their effectiveness. Teaching methods varied according to the time period, format, and types of questionnaire.
conclusionsMost studies demonstrated the effectiveness of the chosen teaching methods. This study shows the importance of health professionals using evidence-based practice to ensure effective patient treatment.
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.