Skip to main content
. 2013 May-Jun;29(3):703–709. doi: 10.12669/pjms.293.3299

Table-II.

Knowledge comparison between academic staff who attended an evidence-based health care seminar and those who did not attenda,b

All
(N = 79)
Mean (SD)
Attended
(N = 46)
Mean (SD)
Did Not Attend
(N = 33)
Mean (SD)
P Value c
Absolute risk 3.47 (1.27) 3.7 (1.15) 3.15 (1.37) .068
Clinical effectiveness 3.82 (1.13) 4.07 (0.93) 3.48 (1.3) .033
Clinical practice guidelines 3.75 (1.09) 3.91 (0.98) 3.52 (1.2) .124
Coincidence bias 2.61 (1.31) 2.89 (1.3) 2.21 (1.24) .022
Confidence interval 3 (1.24) 3.24 (1.16) 2.67 (1.29) .047
Heterogeneity 3.33 (1.3) 3.57 (1.15) 3 (1.44) .066
Inverse interval 2.86 (1.15) 3.09 (1.09) 2.55 (1.18) .041
Meta-analysis 3.06 (1.27) 3.3 (1.24) 2.73 (1.26) .047
Number needed to treat 3.62 (1.1) 3.8 (1.05) 3.36 (1.14) .084
Odds ratio 3.19 (1.33) 3.3 (1.3) 3.03 (1.38) .376
Publication bias 3.35 (1.26) 3.5 (1.3) 3.15 (1.2) .223
Randomized controlled trial 3.71 (1.19) 4.07 (1.14) 3.21 (1.08) .001
Relative risk 3.54 (0.98) 3.78 (0.89) 3.21 (1.02) .012
Systematic review 3.75 (1.08) 4.17 (0.82) 3.15 (1.12) <.001

aScale: 5 = Understand and could explain to others; 1 = Never heard the term

bThe t test was used.           cP<.05