Critical appraisal using the READER method: a workshop-based controlled trial

D MacAuley, E McCrum

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    5 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Background. Critical reading is an important skill for those trying to practice evidence-based medicine. There are a number of recognized structures for critical reading, including the READER model. These methods should be subjected to high-quality studies. Objectives. We aimed to evaluate the READER method in a practical teaching setting using the highest quality research methodology. Methods. We carried out a modified randomized controlled trial. Two groups of GP trainers were invited to appraise critically the two articles using either the READER acronym or a semistructured free appraisal. Results. Of 99 participants in the! workshop, 92 completed the study. One-third of participants (33.7%) read more than five articles per month and those who had been in practice the longest read fewer articles (P < 0.05). Both groups attributed the lowest score to paper 2. The median total scores were higher using the READER method, although only significant for paper 2 (P< 0.05). The median score attributed to the methodology was lower using the READER method than the free appraisal, although this difference was only significant for paper 1 (P< 0.05). Overall, 51% (70% of the READER group) believed that taking part in the exercise would encourage them to be more critical of published articles in the future. Conclusion. Those using the READER method attributed a higher total score, but were more critical of the methodology than those using a free appraisal. Participants found the study useful and believed that it would be of help in future critical appraisal. The study raises interesting questions about the relative importance to GPs of methodological rigour compared with other factors when evaluating research papers.
    LanguageEnglish
    Pages90-93
    JournalFamily Practice
    Volume16
    Issue number1
    Publication statusPublished - Feb 1999

    Fingerprint

    Education
    Reading
    Evidence-Based Medicine
    Teaching
    Research Design
    Randomized Controlled Trials
    Research

    Cite this

    MacAuley, D ; McCrum, E. / Critical appraisal using the READER method: a workshop-based controlled trial. In: Family Practice. 1999 ; Vol. 16, No. 1. pp. 90-93.
    @article{f47a31a5350f41be946036d011781226,
    title = "Critical appraisal using the READER method: a workshop-based controlled trial",
    abstract = "Background. Critical reading is an important skill for those trying to practice evidence-based medicine. There are a number of recognized structures for critical reading, including the READER model. These methods should be subjected to high-quality studies. Objectives. We aimed to evaluate the READER method in a practical teaching setting using the highest quality research methodology. Methods. We carried out a modified randomized controlled trial. Two groups of GP trainers were invited to appraise critically the two articles using either the READER acronym or a semistructured free appraisal. Results. Of 99 participants in the! workshop, 92 completed the study. One-third of participants (33.7{\%}) read more than five articles per month and those who had been in practice the longest read fewer articles (P < 0.05). Both groups attributed the lowest score to paper 2. The median total scores were higher using the READER method, although only significant for paper 2 (P< 0.05). The median score attributed to the methodology was lower using the READER method than the free appraisal, although this difference was only significant for paper 1 (P< 0.05). Overall, 51{\%} (70{\%} of the READER group) believed that taking part in the exercise would encourage them to be more critical of published articles in the future. Conclusion. Those using the READER method attributed a higher total score, but were more critical of the methodology than those using a free appraisal. Participants found the study useful and believed that it would be of help in future critical appraisal. The study raises interesting questions about the relative importance to GPs of methodological rigour compared with other factors when evaluating research papers.",
    author = "D MacAuley and E McCrum",
    year = "1999",
    month = "2",
    language = "English",
    volume = "16",
    pages = "90--93",
    journal = "Family Practice",
    issn = "0263-2136",
    number = "1",

    }

    MacAuley, D & McCrum, E 1999, 'Critical appraisal using the READER method: a workshop-based controlled trial', Family Practice, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 90-93.

    Critical appraisal using the READER method: a workshop-based controlled trial. / MacAuley, D; McCrum, E.

    In: Family Practice, Vol. 16, No. 1, 02.1999, p. 90-93.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Critical appraisal using the READER method: a workshop-based controlled trial

    AU - MacAuley, D

    AU - McCrum, E

    PY - 1999/2

    Y1 - 1999/2

    N2 - Background. Critical reading is an important skill for those trying to practice evidence-based medicine. There are a number of recognized structures for critical reading, including the READER model. These methods should be subjected to high-quality studies. Objectives. We aimed to evaluate the READER method in a practical teaching setting using the highest quality research methodology. Methods. We carried out a modified randomized controlled trial. Two groups of GP trainers were invited to appraise critically the two articles using either the READER acronym or a semistructured free appraisal. Results. Of 99 participants in the! workshop, 92 completed the study. One-third of participants (33.7%) read more than five articles per month and those who had been in practice the longest read fewer articles (P < 0.05). Both groups attributed the lowest score to paper 2. The median total scores were higher using the READER method, although only significant for paper 2 (P< 0.05). The median score attributed to the methodology was lower using the READER method than the free appraisal, although this difference was only significant for paper 1 (P< 0.05). Overall, 51% (70% of the READER group) believed that taking part in the exercise would encourage them to be more critical of published articles in the future. Conclusion. Those using the READER method attributed a higher total score, but were more critical of the methodology than those using a free appraisal. Participants found the study useful and believed that it would be of help in future critical appraisal. The study raises interesting questions about the relative importance to GPs of methodological rigour compared with other factors when evaluating research papers.

    AB - Background. Critical reading is an important skill for those trying to practice evidence-based medicine. There are a number of recognized structures for critical reading, including the READER model. These methods should be subjected to high-quality studies. Objectives. We aimed to evaluate the READER method in a practical teaching setting using the highest quality research methodology. Methods. We carried out a modified randomized controlled trial. Two groups of GP trainers were invited to appraise critically the two articles using either the READER acronym or a semistructured free appraisal. Results. Of 99 participants in the! workshop, 92 completed the study. One-third of participants (33.7%) read more than five articles per month and those who had been in practice the longest read fewer articles (P < 0.05). Both groups attributed the lowest score to paper 2. The median total scores were higher using the READER method, although only significant for paper 2 (P< 0.05). The median score attributed to the methodology was lower using the READER method than the free appraisal, although this difference was only significant for paper 1 (P< 0.05). Overall, 51% (70% of the READER group) believed that taking part in the exercise would encourage them to be more critical of published articles in the future. Conclusion. Those using the READER method attributed a higher total score, but were more critical of the methodology than those using a free appraisal. Participants found the study useful and believed that it would be of help in future critical appraisal. The study raises interesting questions about the relative importance to GPs of methodological rigour compared with other factors when evaluating research papers.

    M3 - Article

    VL - 16

    SP - 90

    EP - 93

    JO - Family Practice

    T2 - Family Practice

    JF - Family Practice

    SN - 0263-2136

    IS - 1

    ER -