General practitioners' self ratings of skills in evidence based medicine: validation study
BMJ 2002; 324 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7343.950 (Published 20 April 2002) Cite this as: BMJ 2002;324:950Data supplement
Criteria that show full understanding of terms used in evidence based medicine
Terms used in evidence based medicine—what general practitioners think they mean Relative risk means:
· one of several individual risk factors for a disease—for example, smoking and ischaemic heart disease · some uncertainty about the level of risk Relative risk reduction means:
· a reduction in one of several individual risk factors—for example, stopping smoking by someone with hypertension and high cholesterol concentrations to decrease the likelihood of ischaemic heart disease Absolute risk means: · an extremely strong association between an exposure and an outcome—an overriding risk that absolutely swamps other risks · no uncertainty about the level of risk—compelling evidence rather than speculative evidence Absolute risk reduction means:
· reduction in a risk factor to remove risk of a disease completely—absolute riddance of risk Number needed to treat means: · sample size required in research to determine an effect · number of people in a trial who did not respond to treatment, therefore still need to be treated
Table A Criteria that show full understanding of terms used in evidence based medicine
Term No of essential criteria Criteria considered essential by three experts Relative risk* 2 Relative risk estimates the magnitude of an association between exposure and disease Relative risk reduction is calculated as (control event rate – experimental event rate)/control event rate Absolute riskH 1 Absolute risk reduction is the absolute difference in event rates between two intervention or treatment groups Number needed to treat 2 The reciprocal of absolute risk reduction The number of patients needed to be treated to achieve one good outcome (or to prevent one bad outcome) Test sensitivity 2 The proportion of patients with the target disorder who have a positive test result A measure of the probability of correctly diagnosing a case, or the probability that any case will be identified by the test Test specificity 2 The proportion of patients who do not have the target disorder who have a negative or normal test result A measure of the probability of correctly diagnosing person without the disease with a screening test Positive predictive value 1 The probability that a person with a positive test is a true positive (does have the disease) Levels of evidence 3 A hierarchy of evidence based on study design Study design is used as an indicator of the degree to which bias has been eliminated from the study Randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials provide stronger evidence of effectiveness of health care interventions than non-randomised studies *Participants were prompted to explain both relative risk and relative risk reduction.
HParticipants were prompted to explain both absolute risk and absolute risk reduction.
Related articles
- This Week In The BMJ Published: 20 April 2002; BMJ 324 doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7343.0/d
- Letter Published: 03 August 2002; BMJ 325 doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7358.280
- Editorial Published: 20 April 2002; BMJ 324 doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7343.929
- Student Published: 01 May 2003; BMJ 326 doi:10.1136/sbmj.0305132
See more
- Introductory AddressProv Med Surg J October 03, 1840, s1-1 (1) 1-4; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.s1-1.1.1
- Report of the Meeting of the Eastern Branch of the Provincial Association at Bury St. Edmond'sProv Med Surg J October 03, 1840, s1-1 (1) 10-13; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.s1-1.1.10
- Mr. Warburton's Bill for the Regulation of the Medical ProfessionProv Med Surg J October 03, 1840, s1-1 (1) 13-15; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.s1-1.1.13
- An Atlas of Plates, illustrative of the Principles and Practice of Obstetric Medicine and Surgery, with descriptive LetterpressProv Med Surg J October 03, 1840, s1-1 (1) 4; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.s1-1.1.4
- A Practical Treatise on the Diseases peculiar to Women, illustrated by Cases, &cProv Med Surg J October 03, 1840, s1-1 (1) 4-5; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.s1-1.1.4-a
Cited by...
- Constructing diagnostic likelihood: clinical decisions using subjective versus statistical probability
- How well do health professionals interpret diagnostic information? A systematic review
- Evidence-based medicine among Jordanian family physicians: Awareness, attitude, and knowledge
- Perceptions and Competence in Evidence-Based Medicine: Are Surgeons Getting Better?: A Questionnaire Survey of Members of the Dutch Orthopaedic Association
- Evidence-based medicine: assessment of knowledge of basic epidemiological and research methods among medical doctors
- Teaching evidence based medicine
- Challenges for Evidence-Based Physical Therapy: Accessing and Interpreting High-Quality Evidence on Therapy
- Evidence based practice in population health: a regional survey to inform workforce development and organisational change
- Seriously improving your ability as a doctor
- Doctors' self rating of skills in evidence based medicine
- Doctors' knowledge about evidence based medicine terminology