Implementing Evidence‐Based Practice in Undergraduate Teaching Clinics: A Systematic Review and Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this project was to identify an effective methodology of approaching and implementing evidence-based principles in undergraduate teaching clinics to promote evidence-based dentistry in future clinical practice. A systematic review was undertaken to examine evidence-based clinical teaching and faculty continuing education. Research published from 1996 to 2002 was retrieved by searching several databases and the Internet, along with conducting hand searches and reviewing bibliographies maintained by faculty experts. Qualitative checklists for different types of studies were created to evaluate the literature. Relevant studies were selected if they met all four predetermined essential criteria and a minimum of two out of three desirable criteria. Systematic reviews were chosen if they met all five essential criteria. Data from selected articles were extracted, and study quality was assessed. We found that three systematic reviews and nine original research articles were deemed methodologically acceptable. Problem-based learning and evidence-based health care interventions increased student knowledge of medical topics and their ability to search, evaluate, and appraise medical literature. Dental students in a problem-based learning curriculum, emphasizing evidence-based practices, scored higher on the NDB I (National Dentistry Boards, Part I) than students in traditional curricula. While effective modules in implementing theoretical evidence-based principles exist, very few high-quality studies are available that examine these principles in dental undergraduate teaching clinics. No methodologically appropriate studies on the education of faculty in the implementation of evidence-based principles are available. Some studies promote promising theories and methodologies of teaching evidence-based care; based on these theories, a comprehensive model is proposed in this article. Considering the strength of evidence in the reviewed literature, we concluded that an evidence-based approach to clinical care is effective.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | Meta-epidemiology (broad) Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| grok | Meta-epidemiology (broad) Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.106 | 0.216 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".