Evidence-based Medicine versus the Conventional Approach to Journal Club Sessions: Which One Is More Successful in Teaching Critical Appraisal Skills?

Abstract

This study aimed to compare evidence-based medicine (EBM) vs. conventional approaches to journal club sessions in teaching critical appraisal skills in reading papers by emergency medicine residents. This double cut off discontinuation regression quasi-experimental study was conducted among emergency medicine residents. EBM vs. the conventional approach were applied to teach critical appraisal skills for half of the residents as an experimental group and another half as a control group respectively. Both groups participated in one hour monthly journal club sessions for six months. Before and after the study, all participants were examined by two tests: the Fresno Test (FT) [to evaluate their knowledge about EBM] and the Critical Appraisal Skills Test (CAST) [to evaluate their competency with critical appraisal skills]. The allocation of the participants into the experimental or control groups was according to their CAST scores before the study. 50 emergency medicine residents participated. After the study, the scores of both groups in the FT and CAST significantly improved (p<0.01), and the promotion of scores of the FT and CAST in the experimental group were more than that of the conventional group (p<0.0001). The current study indicated that an evidence-based medicine approach in journal club sessions was comparatively more advantageous compared to the conventional approach in teaching critical appraisal skills for reading papers among the residents of emergency medicine.