Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Domhnall MacAuley Division of Epidemiology, Royal Victoria
Hospital, Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast BT12
6BJ
Correspondence to: Dr MacAuley drs.hillhead{at}dnet.co.uk
Objective: To evaluate the READER model for critical
reading by comparing it with a free appraisal, and to explore what
factors influence different components of the model.
Design: A randomised controlled trial in which two
groups of general practitioners assessed three papers from the general practice section of the BMJ.
Setting: Northern Ireland.
Subjects: 243 general practitioners.
Main outcome measures: Scores given using the READER
model (Relevance, Education, Applicability, Discrimination, overall Evaluation) and scores given using a free appraisal for scientific quality and an overall total.
Results: The hierarchical order for the three papers
was different for the two groups, according to the total scores. Participants using the READER method (intervention group) gave a
significantly lower total score (P
0.01) and a lower score for the
scientific quality (P
0.0001) for all three papers. Overall more than
one in five (22%), and more men than women, read more than 5 articles
a month (P
0.05). Those who were trainers tended to read more
articles (P
0.05), and no trainers admitted to reading none. Overall,
58% (135/234) (68% (76/112) of the intervention group) believed that
taking part in the exercise would encourage them to be more critical of
published articles in the future (P
0.01).
Conclusion: Participants using the READER model gave
a consistently lower overall score and applied a more appropriate appraisal to the methodology of the studies. The method was both accurate and repeatable. No intrinsic factors influenced the scores, so
the model is appropriate for use by all general practitioners regardless of their seniority, location, teaching or training experience, and the number of articles they read regularly.
Key messages
© BMJ 1998
Read all Rapid Responses