No abstract

No abstract

Background Evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) knowledge and skills are recognised as core competencies of healthcare professionals worldwide, and teaching EBHC has been widely recommended as an integral part of their training. The objective of this overview of systematic reviews (SR) was to update evidence and assess the effects of various approaches for teaching evidence-based health care (EBHC) at undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) medical education (ME) level on changes in knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour. Methods and findings This is an update of an overview that was published in 2014. The process followed standard procedures specified for the previous version of the overview, with a modified search. Searches were conducted in Epistemonikos for SRs published from 1 January 2013 to 27 October 2020 with no language restrictions. We checked additional sources for ongoing and unpublished SRs. Eligibility criteria included: SRs which evaluated educational interventions for teaching EBHC compared to no intervention or a different strategy were eligible. Two reviewers independently selected SRs, extracted data and evaluated quality using standardised instrument (AMSTAR2). The effects of strategies to teach EBHC were synthesized using a narrative approach. Previously published version of this overview included 16 SR, while the updated search identified six additional SRs. We therefore included a total of 22 SRs (with a total of 141 primary studies) in this updated overview. The SRs evaluated different educational interventions of varying duration, frequency, and format to teach various components of EBHC at different levels of ME (UG, PG, mixed). Most SRs assessed a range of EBHC related outcomes using a variety of assessment tools. Two SRs included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only, while 20 reviews included RCTs and various types of non-RCTs. Diversity of study designs and teaching activities as well as aggregated findings at the SR level prevented comparisons of the effects of different techniques. In general, knowledge was improved across all ME levels for interventions compared to no intervention or pre-test scores. Skills improved in UGs, but less so in PGs and were less consistent in mixed populations. There were positive changes in behaviour among UGs and PGs, but not in mixed populations, with no consistent improvement in attitudes in any of the studied groups. One SR showed improved patient outcomes (based on non-randomised studies). Main limitations included: poor quality and reporting of SRs, heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures, and short-term follow up. Conclusions Teaching EBHC consistently improved EBHC knowledge and skills at all levels of ME and behaviour in UGs and PGs, but with no consistent improvement in attitudes towards EBHC, and little evidence of the long term influence on processes of care and patient outcomes. EBHC teaching and learning should be interactive, multifaceted, integrated into clinical practice, and should include assessments. Study registration The protocol for the original overview was developed and approved by Stellenbosch University Research Ethics Committee S12/10/262. Update of the overview Young T, Rohwer A, Volmink J, Clarke M. What are the effects of teaching evidence-based health care (EBHC)? Overview of systematic reviews. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e86706. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086706.

No abstract

Background AMSTAR-2 (‘A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2’) and ROBIS (‘Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews’) are independent instruments used to assess the quality of conduct of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs). The degree of overlap in methodological constructs together with the reliability and any methodological gaps have not been systematically assessed and summarized in the field of nutrition. Methods We performed a systematic survey of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for SR/MAs published between January 2010 and November 2018 that examined the effects of any nutritional intervention/exposure for cancer prevention. We followed a systematic review approach including two independent reviewers at each step of the process. For AMSTAR-2 (16 items) and ROBIS (21 items), we assessed the similarities, the inter-rater reliability (IRR) and any methodological limitations of the instruments. Our protocol for the survey was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019121116). Results We found 4 similar domain constructs based on 11 comparisons from a total of 12 AMSTAR-2 and 14 ROBIS items. Ten comparisons were considered fully overlapping. Based on Gwet’s agreement coefficients, six comparisons provided almost perfect (> 0.8), three substantial (> 0.6), and one a moderate level of agreement (> 0.4). While there is considerable overlap in constructs, AMSTAR-2 uniquely addresses explaining the selection of study designs for inclusion, reporting on excluded studies with justification, sources of funding of primary studies, and reviewers’ conflict of interest. By contrast, ROBIS uniquely addresses appropriateness and restrictions within eligibility criteria, reducing risk of error in risk of bias (RoB) assessments, completeness of data extracted for analyses, the inclusion of all necessary studies for analyses, and adherence to predefined analysis plan. Conclusions Among the questions on AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS, 70.3% (26/37 items) address the same or similar methodological constructs. While the IRR of these constructs was moderate to perfect, there are unique methodological constructs that each instrument independently addresses. Notably, both instruments do not address the reporting of absolute estimates of effect or the overall certainty of the evidence, items that are crucial for users’ wishing to interpret the importance of SR/MA results.