Study design |
Pre-post design |
Prospective cohort |
Pre-post study |
Pre-post study |
Pre-post study |
Country |
USA |
USA |
USA |
USA |
USA |
Specialty |
Emergency Medicine |
Internal Medicine |
Internal Medicine |
not reported |
Internal Medicine |
Number of Participants, n |
14 |
not reported |
11 |
26 |
108 (10-12/session) |
Study period |
16 months |
Not reported |
1 year |
2 years |
6 months |
|
|
EBM Curriculum Structure |
8 structured interactive online modules and a librarian meeting |
5 modules: 1) introduction to EBM; 2) randomized control trials; 3) cohort and case-control studies 4) diagnostic tests. 5) meta-analyses |
2 week block rotation for first and second year residents |
Journal Club integrated with EBM principles |
Interactive lectures and case discussion |
Length/frequency |
2 weeks |
Not reported |
2 weeks |
18 months |
Once a month for 30 minutes |
Teachers/
facilitators
|
Librarian |
Physician, EBM expert, instructional
designer
|
Internal medicine faculty, librarians |
Teaching resident, core EBM faculty |
Not reported |
|
|
|
Curriculum content |
Process of EMB, study design, validity, and biostatics, PICO and search strategies |
1) introduction to EBM. 2) randomized control trials. 3) cohort and case control studies. 4) diagnostic tests. 5) meta-analyses |
Hands-on sessions to teach
literature search and critical
appraisal
|
1) peer instruction model and peer to peer discussion coordinated by
a teaching resident, 2) dedicated EBM lecture delivered at the begining of each journal club, 3) identification of
|
1) assessment of risks and benefits of treatment. 2) rational use of diagnostic testing |
|
|
Outcome measures |
EBM knowledge and skills |
Satisfaction with the course, milestones, correctness of responses, number of attempts, need for remediation |
EBM skills and knowledge |
EBM skills and knowledge |
Comfort in understanding of
material
|
|
Evaluation method |
Fresno test |
survey |
Fresno test; Resident self assessed comfort with EBM resources |
Fresno test administered at the end of each year |
comfort via 5pt Likert scale;
critical risk interpretation test (CRIT)
|
Results |
1) Fresno median pre-test 80, median post-test 103 (p=0.002). 2) PICO question (p=0.009), internal validity (p=0.018), study design (p=0.004); no significant improvement among search strategy or biostatistics
knowledge
|
97% of residents were satisfied or very satisfied with the course |
1) Fresno mean pre-test 114.3, mean post-test 154.6 (p<0.001). 2) Likert scale (p<0.001) for: searching and using MeSH terms, advanced limits, subheadings in Ovid, and conducting and presenting a literature review |
Fresno pretest 110.16, year 1 posttest 127.82, year 2 posttest 127.07, (p=0.011) |
1) "furthered understanding of how to practice EBM" 4.6/5 of Likert. 2) "use skills learned in these sessions during regular practice" 4.5/5 on Likert |
|
Author (year) |
Moll (2012) |
Mroz and Carroll (2019) |
Schwartz et al. (2000) |
Vesbianu and Rodriguez (2018) |
Vogel (2000) |
Study design |
Pre-post study |
Prospective cohort |
Pre-post study |
Pre-post study |
Pre-post study |
Country |
USA |
USA |
USA |
USA |
USA |
Specialty |
Emergency Medicine |
Internal Medicine |
Primary Care |
internal medicine |
internal medicine |
Number of Participants, n |
not specified |
68 |
14 |
30 |
42 |
Study period |
3 years |
1 year |
6 weeks |
6 months |
One year |
|
EBM Curriculum Structure |
Modules |
Interactive lectures and problem based learning |
Self-reported critical appraisal on 13 items, and self-reported electronic searching skills on 17 items |
Small group ambulatory didactics |
Didactic, with residents giving presentations at the end of the course |
Length/frequency |
Four 6-month modules |
Six 1-hour sessions over one year |
60 hours over 6 weeks |
1 hour sessions every week |
8 weeks |
Teachers/
facilitators
|
Faculty |
Not reported |
Not reported |
Faculty |
Unclear |
|
Curriculum content |
1) introduction and tools needed; 2) small groups formulate a clinical question, research and rate literature; 3) implementation module, knowledge translation and set |
1) recognition of overconfidence and understanding probability; 2) test interpretation; 3) study design; 4) asking a clinical question; 5) abstract review; 6) feedback and skills |
1) critical appraisal 2) electronic searching skills |
1) appraise and understand medical literature. 2) incorporate learned EBM knowledge into patient care |
1) developing clinical questions from patient encounters 2) finding best- quality information sources 3) critical appraisal |
|
Outcome measures |
EBM sources, knowledge translation tool use and retention |
EBM skills and knowledge; opinions on the new curriculum |
Attitudes towards EBM curriculum |
Level of confidence |
Survey of EBM attitudes and abilities, computer searching skills, opinions on curriculum, confidence in skills learned |
|
Evaluation method |
self-reported questionnaire |
Fresno, resident evaluation |
survey, 6-item 4pt nihilism scale to address distrust of research methods and applicability of research articles |
self-reported EBM skills questionnaire |
self-reports, surveys, and
written tests
|
Results |
EBM sources are the first query in 67% compared to 50% at the start, and 63% self-identify a change in how they obtain information |
1) Fresno post-test 124; 2) resident course rating 7.8 (SD 1.8) on a 10 point Likert scale |
1) critical appraisal before study 71%, after study 85%, (p=0.002). 2) electronic searching skills before study 68%, after 83%, (p=0.001). |
perceived level of confidence improved from 3.62 to 3.89, (p=0.05) |
1st written pretest 49% posttest 86%, 2nd written pretest 42% posttest 57%. (p<0.001) for each |
|
Author (year) |
Vom Eigen (2002) |
Vu et al. (2017) |
Walkey and Fairchild (2006) |
Zipkin et al. (2010) |
Study design |
Pre-post study |
Pre-post study |
Pre-post study |
Pre-post study |
Country |
USA |
USA |
USA |
USA |
Specialty |
Primary Care Internal Medicine |
Pediatric |
primary care |
Internal Medicine |
Number of Participants, n |
46 |
23 |
21 |
18 |
Study period |
3 years |
1 year |
Not reported |
Not reported |
|
EBM Curriculum Structure |
interactive didactic small groups |
Small groups, didactics |
Didactic, interactive |
Small, interactive groups |
Length/frequency |
10-12 weekly sessions for 1 hour over
the course of the 3 month curriculum
|
Monthly conferences |
1.5 hr lecture on didactics followed
by 15 min residents presentation on
|
4 half-day sessions over one week |
Teachers/
facilitators
|
Instructor |
Residents and faculty |
More senior residents residents |
Not reported |
|
Curriculum content |
Biostatics, informatics, clinical epidemiology, patient care issues, search for relevant research articles, discussion lead by instructor |
Formulate a clinical question, selected and appraised a single article, present an overview, and facilitated discussions |
1) didactic session, sample patient encounters. 2) patient contact, generating and question and presentation based on encounter. 3) opportunity to teach other residents |
Understanding study design, bias and random error, diagnostics, screening, treatments, harm, and prognostics |
|
Outcome measures |
Pre/post test of knowledge as well as self-evaluated changes in clinical knowledge, skills, practice, and ability to evaluate medical literature |
level of EBM education, ability to appraise articles on Likert scale |
Ability to form clinical questions |
Knowledge, quality of education, written feedback |
|
Evaluation method |
38 item test |
Berlin Questionnaire and Assessing Competency in EBM (ACE) |
adapted Fresno test (72 pt scale) |
25 point multiple choice test |
Results |
mean score of pre and post tests improved from 65.3% to 73.7% (p<0.
001).
|
1) Berlin Questionnaire pretest 63%, posttest 76%, (p<0.001). 2) ACE pretest 63%, posttest 67%, (p=0.27). 3) 2.9/5 Likert for quality of education in EBM during medical school. Rated ability to appraise articles pretest was 2.8 and posttest was 3.2
on Likert (p=0.03)
|
1) Fresno pre/post scores increased by 55% (p<0.0001). 2) key subsections: ability to identify EBM sources (120% increase in correctness, p<0.0001) and ability to form questions in PICO format (36% increase, p=0.03) |
pretest mean 14.17 (SD 4), posttest
mean 17.11 (2.4), (p=0.008)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|