Table 1.

Participants' Ratings of Interactive Evidence-based Experience (Agree of Disagree)

Question	n	Mean (SD)*	Agree†, %	P Value‡
I learned new information concerning evaluating chest pain in women.	29	4.21 (0.77)	79	<.001
I found new tools to retrieve information concerning evaluating chest pain in women.	29	4.31 (0.85)	90	<.001
I learned improved methods to determine posttest probability of disease, e.g., the probability of coronary artery disease after a positive or negative test.	29	4.14 (0.69)	83	.004
My clinical knowledge would improve if I attended regular interactive conferences similar to this exercise.	29	4.55 (0.51)	100	<.001
My ability to retrieve evidences based medical information would improve if I attended regular interactive conferences similar to this exercise.	29	4.41 (0.57)	97	<.001
My ability to interpret diagnostic tests would improve if I attended regualr interactive conferences similar to this exercise.	29	4.48 (0.57)	97	<.001
I need no further training in finding clinical information available online.	30	1.6 (1.00)	7	<.001
I am not likely to use computers in acquiring clinical information.	30	1.53 (1.11)	7	<.001
I am not likely to use computers in retrieving clinical information.	30	1.4 (0.86)	3	<.001
I am not likely to use computers to improve my abillity to interpret diagnostic tests.	30	1.57 (9.4)	7	<.001
I am not likely to attend conferences such as this again.	30	1.5 (1.04)	7	<.001
I am likely to learn more with routine, i.e., noninteractive case conference.	29	2.55 (1.12)	21	.003
Interpretation of diagnostic tests is better taught in routine case conference.	29	2.76 (1.09)	24	<.041
The medical literature is more likely to be accessible after routine case conference.	29	2.86 (1.19)	24	<.041

^*Mean rating on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = no opinion, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).

^†Percentage responding agree or strongly agree (4 or 5).

^‡One-Sample Kolmorgorov-Smirnov Test Pvalue.