Linzer 1988.
| Methods | Trial design: RCT Power calculation: Y Funding: Kate B. Reynolds Health Care Trust Ethics approval: not reported Lost to follow‐up: 3 |
|
| Participants | Characteristics of participants: all interns entering the Department of Internal Medicine at Duke University, Durham, NC Exclusion criteria: not reported No. randomised: 44 No. analysed: 41 Other characteristics: age: not reported; sex: not reported Setting: hospital (Department of Internal Medicine at Duke University, Durham, NC) Country: USA |
|
| Interventions | Intervention group: medical journal club led by interns using 1 article (provided critique methods, results, conclusions); presentation supported by general medicine faculty facilitator (elaborates on epidemiological/biostatistical concepts). Typically involved 1‐hour of preparation with half of that hour on selecting an article. Theory‐based intervention: N Control group: standard conference series on ambulatory medicine Intervention deliverer: general medicine faculty |
|
| Outcomes | Outcomes measured: change in reading habits; knowledge and critical appraisal scores (evaluation instrument assessed: baseline characteristics, reading habits, knowledge of epidemiology and biostatistics, and critical appraisal skills). A non‐validated evaluation instrument (given before and immediately following the intervention) that evaluated baseline research experience, previous education with critical appraisal, reading habits, direct knowledge of epidemiology and biostatistics, and specifically critical appraisal skills Distal follow‐up interval: immediately following the educational intervention (average time between pre‐test and post‐test evaluation, 9.5 weeks) Losses to follow‐up: 3 N randomised: 22 IG, 22 CG N completing follow‐up: 22 IG, 19 CG Reasons for loss to follow‐up: CG ‐ 1 control subject declined the pre‐test, one medicine‐pediatrics resident was inappropriately entered into the study (control group), and 1 control group intern left the training programme |
|
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | 44 interns entering the Department of Internal Medicine at Duke University, Durham, NC, were randomly assigned to either a general medicine journal club or a standard conference in topics in ambulatory medicine |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | (Unclear for consent forms only): the specific study hypotheses and, in particular, the focus on impact of the journal club on these matters were not noted in the consent form (Yes for outcome assessors): for the final grading process, graders were blinded to intervention group and to whether it was a pre‐test or post‐test (p.2538) |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | One control subject declined the pre‐test, one medicine‐pediatrics resident was inappropriately entered into the study (control group), and 1 control group intern left the training programme |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Expected outcomes reported |
| Other bias | Low risk | |