Successful teaching in evidence‐based medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Several published articles have described the importance of exposing medical trainees to the 'new paradigm' of evidence-based medicine (EBM). Recognizing this, we sought to develop and objectively evaluate a mini-course in EBM for third-year medical students. DESIGN: We developed a mini-course consisting of four sessions in which students learn to derive sequentially focused questions, search MEDLINE, review articles critically and apply information from the literature to specific clinical questions. To evaluate the teaching intervention, we performed a controlled educational study. Students at the intervention site (n=34) attended the EBM mini-course, while students at the control site (n=26) received more 'traditional' didactic teaching on various clinical topics. Intervention and control students were surveyed immediately before and after the mini-course to assess changes in reading and literature searching skills, as well as a tendency to use the literature to answer clinical questions. SETTING: Boston University School of Medicine. SUBJECTS: Third-year medical students. RESULTS: The intervention was associated with significant changes in students' self-assessed skills and attitudes. MEDLINE and critical appraisal skills increased significantly in the intervention group relative to the control group (significance of between group differences: P=0.002 for MEDLINE and P=0.0002 for critical appraisal), as did students' tendency to use MEDLINE and original research articles to solve clinical problems (significance of between group differences: P=0.002 and P=0.0008, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that this brief teaching intervention in EBM has had a positive impact on student skills and attitudes at our medical school. We believe that the key elements of this intervention are (1) active student involvement, (2), clinical relevance of exercises and (3) integrated teaching targeting each of the component skills of EBM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".