Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1998
Randomised controlled trial of the READER method of critical appraisal in general practice.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of how studies describe educational interventions for evidence-based practice: stage 1 of the development of a reporting guideline.BMC medical education · 2014Pooled it
- Teaching critical appraisal skills in healthcare settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Article
- An integrative review on individual determinants of enrolment in National Health Insurance Scheme among older adults in Ghana.BMC primary care · 2022Review
- How to critically appraise an article.Nature clinical practice. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2009Review
- The quality of research in sports journals.British journal of sports medicine · 2002Article
- Use of the READER method of critical appraisal in general practice . Study did not properly answer the questions it posedBMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1998Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the READER model for critical reading by comparing it with a free appraisal, and to explore what factors influence different components of the model.
designA randomised controlled trial in which two groups of general practitioners assessed three papers from the general practice section of the BMJ.
settingNorthern Ireland. SUBJECTS: 243 general practitioners.
main outcome measuresScores given using the READER model (Relevance, Education, Applicability, Discrimination, overall Evaluation) and scores given using a free appraisal for scientific quality and an overall total.
resultsThe hierarchical order for the three papers was different for the two groups, according to the total scores. Participants using the READER method (intervention group) gave a significantly lower total score (P < or = 0.01) and a lower score for the scientific quality (P < or = 0.0001) for all three papers. Overall more than one in five (22%), and more men than women, read more than 5 articles a month (P < or = 0.05). Those who were trainers tended to read more articles (P < or = 0.05), and no trainers admitted to reading none. Overall, 58% (135/234) (68% (76/112) of the intervention group) believed that taking part in the exercise would encourage them to be more critical of published articles in the future (P < or = 0.01).
conclusionParticipants using the READER model gave a consistently lower overall score and applied a more appropriate appraisal to the methodology of the studies. The method was both accurate and repeatable. No intrinsic factors influenced the scores, so the model is appropriate for use by all general practitioners regardless of their seniority, location, teaching or training experience, and the number of articles they read regularly.
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.