- Framework of problems / Objective
- Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base
- 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? |