↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of training in evidence-based medicine skills for healthcare professionals: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness of training in evidence-based medicine skills for healthcare professionals: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Medical Education, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0616-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lars Hecht, Susanne Buhse, Gabriele Meyer

Abstract

Basic skills in evidence-based medicine (EbM) are indispensable for healthcare professionals to promote consumer-centred, evidence-based treatment. EbM training courses are complex interventions - a fact that has not been methodologically reflected by previous systematic reviews. This review evaluates the effects of EbM training for healthcare professionals as well as the quality of reporting of such training interventions. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ERIC, Campbell Library and PsycINFO up to 9/2014. Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials as well as before-after trials were included. Authors were contacted in order to obtain missing data. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We reviewed 14.507 articles; n = 61 appeared potentially eligible; n = 13 involving 1,120 participants were included. EbM training shows some impact on knowledge and skills, whereas the impact on practical EbM application remains unclear. Risk of bias of included trials raises uncertainty about the effects. Description of complex interventions was poor. EbM training has some positive effects on knowledge and skills of healthcare professionals. Appropriate methods for development, piloting, evaluation, reporting and implementation of the training should be applied.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 13 19%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Other 26 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 47%
Unspecified 12 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 16%
Psychology 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,639,638
of 13,641,879 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#311
of 2,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,392
of 261,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,641,879 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,031 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 261,846 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them