Interventions, methods and outcome measures used in teaching evidence-based practice to healthcare students: an overview of systematic reviews

Ref ID 1048
First Author L.D. Nielsen
Journal BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION
Year Of Publishing 2024
URL https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-024-05259-8
Keywords General medical
Low methodological quality
Problem(s) No registered or published protocol
Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base
Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
Number of systematic reviews included 6
Summary of Findings All the 6 included systematic reviews were of critically low methodological quality using AMSTAR 2. The main reasons for the low quality of the reviews were 1) not demonstrating a registered protocol prior to the review (4/6, 66.6%), 2) not providing a list of excluded studies with justification for exclusion (5/6, 83.3%) and 3) not accounting for the quality of the individual studies when interpreting the result of the review (14/6, 66.6%). Half of the SRs did not report sources of funding for primary studies.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?