Gruppen et al. (2005) [5] |
US, Michigan, University of Michigan Medical School, 2001-2003 4th year medical students (n=92) |
To examine the influence of teaching the EBM skill of efficiently searching the research literature and describe criteria for documenting and guantifying search quality |
SI: 90'-session on EBP Study questionnaire |
Average number of search errors for each student: intervention vs. control group (4.4 vs. 6.2)
Search performance: intervention (60% vs.72.5%); control (60% vs. 59.3%)
Average improvement in search quality: intervention vs. control group (12.7% vs. -0.7%) |
Okoromah et al. (2006) [22] |
Nigeria, Lagos, University of Lagos, 2006 5th year medical students (n=54) |
To explore the feasibility of introducing a course aiming to improve students'competencies in EBM and their learning |
SI: 3-month course Study questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post- course mean scores: mean (SD)
Mean scores for their understanding of the EBM concepts: 2.20 (0.85) vs. 3.17 (0.80), P<0.001
Mean scores for student knowledge about the need for effective literature search processes in EBM practice: 3.24 (0.71) vs. 3.33 (0.89), P>0.05 |
Liabsuetrakul et al. (2009) [19] |
Thailand, HatYai, Prince of Songkla University, 2005-2007 4th year medical students (n=259) |
To determine changes in attitudes and skills after integration of EBM into a medical school curriculum |
SI: 5 steps taught in small-group sessions, the first 3 during the 4th year of studies and the other 2 during the 5th year (total time 15 months) Study questionnaire |
Comparison of scores at TO, T1, & T2: median (interguartile range)
Overall attitudes: 2.4 (1.7, 3.0) vs. 3.6 (3.0, 4.0) vs. 4.0 (3.4, 4.2)
Overall skills: 2.2 (1.8, 2.8) vs. 3.4 (3.0, 4.0) vs. 3.8 (3.2, 4.0) |
Aronoff et al. (2010) [6] |
US, Philadelphia,Temple University, 2005-2006 3rd year medical students (n=139) |
To determine the impact of the online course in EBM that runs concurrently with the undergraduate clinical clerkships of a medical school |
Ml: online EBM instruction, 6 online didactic modules and sessions Fresno questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post- course comparisons: mean (SD)
Question development: 3.73 (1.27) vs. 4.13 (1.39), P<0.001
Sources of evidence: 3.96 (1.54) vs. 4.53 (1.45), P<0.001
Search strategies: 5.07 (1.88) vs. 5.86 (1.52), P<0.001 |
Lai et al. (2010) [18] |
Malaysia,Kuala Lumpur, International Medical University, Clinical School Batu Pahat, 2005-2006 Final year medical students (n=65) |
To evaluate the information-seeking behaviors of medical undergraduate students by the final 6 months of the EBM training |
SI: six two-hour clinical sessions Study questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post-training scores
Search activities: 9.7% vs. 31.7%, P<0.001
Search speed pre- vs. post- training: 48.4% vs. 49.2%, P=0.979 |
West et al. (2011) [9] |
USA, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, 2006-2008 2nd year medical students (n=99) |
To evaluate a longitudinal medical school EBM curriculum using validated instruments |
Ml: short course, didactic, small-group sessions, EBM assignments
Berlin questionnaire
Fresno questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post- course scores
Self-rated EBM knowledge: year 2 (2.1 vs. 3.1, P<0.001); year 3 (2.1 vs. 3.5, P<0.001)
Berlin questionnaire score: year 2 (6.3 vs. 9.3, P<0.001); year 3 (6.3 vs. 9.7, P<0.001)
Fresno test: year 2 (97.8 vs. 137.5, P<0.001); year 3 (97.8 vs. 152.4, P<0.001) |
Cheng et al. (2012) [20] |
Taiwan,Taipei,Taipei Medical School, 2008-2009 Final (7th) year medical students (n=94) |
To compare the effects of 2 clinically integrated educational strategies on final year medical students'EBP competencies |
SI: EBP-structured case conference for group A & didactic lectures for group B EBP questionnaire divided into 4 domains: EBP-K (knowledge), EBP-P (application), EBP-A (attitude) and EBP-F (future use) |
Mean (SD)
Group A higher scores in EBP-K: 21.2 (3.5) vs. 19.0 (4.6), P<0.01
EBP-P: 18.7 (4.3) vs. 15.3 (3.9), P=0.001 |
Gagliardi et al. (2012) [10] |
US, Durham, Duke University School of Medicine, 2008-2009 3rd and 4th year medical students (n=30) |
To describe how an interactive forum for students contributed in developing EBM skills and competences |
SI: interactive forum organized in 6 120-minutes sessions Study questionnaire |
Median difference between overall scores from pre- to post- course administrations was 13% (min 13% and max 73%) (P< 0.001) |
Ilic et al. (2012) [15] |
Australia, Melbourne, Monash University 3rd year medical students (n=121) |
To identify the effectiveness of delivering a single workshop in EBM literature searching skills to medical students entering their first clinical years of study |
SI: 2 hours workshop
Fresno questionnaire
Clinical effectiveness and EBP |
1-Week post-intervention: mean (SD)
Overall EBM literature searching skills: 10.51 (5.10) vs. 10.50 (4.53), P=0.99
Writing a focused clinical question: 1.73 (0.66) vs. 1.76 (0.76), P=0.82
Identifying information sources: 2.31 (1.84) vs. 2.78 (1.77), P=0.15
Identifying an appropriate study type: 4.33 (2.85) vs. 3.80 (2.77), P=0.30
Performing a literature search: 2.12 (2.39) vs. 2.14 (2.51), P=0.96 |
Morley et al. (2012) [13] |
US, Rio Rancho, New Mexico University medical school, 2006 2nd and 3rd year medical students (n=51) |
To assist students in understanding the changing nature of scholarly communications and online publishing, identifying resources and strategies for researching best EBM and demonstrating effective communication of information |
Ml: course, exercises, small group discussion and didactic lecture Study questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post- course comparisons: mean scores
Defining the topic: 3.06 vs. 3.87
Identifying keywords or subject headings: 3.09 vs. 3.90
Finding evidence-based information: 3.03 vs. 3.87
Using a database to identify articles: 3.12 vs. 3.93
Using bibliographic management software: 1.71 vs. 3.23
Assessing the reliability/validity of information on the web: 2.59 vs. 3.77 |
Sanchez-Mendiola et al. (2012) [14] |
Mexico, Mexico City, UNAM Faculty of Medicine
4th,5th,6th year medical students (n=289)
M5 EBM=5th year exposed to intervention
M5 non-EBM=5th year not exposed
M4=4th year not yet exposed
M6=6th year exposed a year before |
To assess EBM learning (knowledge, attitudes and self-reported skills) in undergraduate medical students |
SI: 14 two-hour weekly sessions
Taylor’s questionnaire
100-item multiple-choice question test |
Confidence in critical appraisal skills: mean (SD)
M4=11.7 (6.3) vs. M5 non-EBM=8.4 (5.7) vs. M5 EBM=17.1 (3.6) vs. M6=16.8 (4), P<0.001 |
Barghouti et al. (2013) [21] |
Jordan, Amman, Jordan University Hospital, 2011 5th year medical students (n=54) |
To assess the effectiveness of a short course in EBM to change the knowledge and skills of undergraduate medical students and point to possible incorporation of EBM in their curriculum |
Ml: lectures, seminars, online search, and answering worksheets Fresno questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post-intervention: mean (SD) scores
All domains: 26.7 (16.1) vs. 119.5 (28.5), P<0.001
Sources of evidence: 7.4 (5.8) vs. 13.5 (5.1), P<0.001
Formulation of clinical question: 4.4 (3.5) vs. 10.0 (2.0), P<0.001
Searching strategies: 2.4 (3.1) vs. 10.6 (6.4), P<0.001 |
Cyrus et al. (2013) [11] |
US, Shreveport, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, 2007-2010 4th year medical students (n=319) |
To assess whether the level of knowledge and understanding of evidence-based medicine and critical appraisal of medical literature increases as a result of the course |
SI: 3-sessions course Study questionnaire |
Overall difference between pre- and post-tests scores was highly statistically significant (Z-score=-3.398, P=0.001)
Number of students with all correct answers: pre- vs. post- course: 10.0% vs. 17.7% |