Evidence based vs traditional journal clubs: Time to switchover.

Abstract

Journal clubs (JC) have been a part of the medical curriculum for long now. Evidence based journal clubs (EBJC) are now being preferred by some. Traditional JCs usually do not provide a satisfactory answer to questions regarding validity, reliability and applicability of the article. EBJC is believed to answer all these questions specifically. However, there is lack of studies comparing traditional with EBJC so this study was carried out to compare the two. Methodology: This was a prospective cohort study. Pre and post tests were conducted after each assessed EBJC presentation to test the understanding of the specific topic and improvement in decision making ability. To assess the understanding of study designs and statistical terms, pre and post tests were done at an interval of six months. Results: A total of 36 residents were included. Almost all could make their opinion regarding acceptability and applicability of authors’ conclusion after the assessed EBJC presentation. The number of correct responses to the test for understanding study design, statistical principles and critical appraisal increased from 27.5% to 68.9% amongst the third year residents. The correct responses after exposure to traditional JC were 27.5% whereas correct responses after about same time of exposure, including six months of EBJC were 59. 5%. Conclusion: We concluded that as compared with traditional JC, exposure to EBJC resulted in much more improvement in the postgraduates’ understanding of study design, statistical principles, critical appraisal skills and decision making capacity.