A controlled randomized trial about using a checklist-based critical appraisal

Abstract

Background: the critical appraisal of scientific publications is a mainstay step in the evidence-based-practice. This study aimed to assess the utility of using a checklist in implementing this practice.
Methods: medical students in the third year that were performing a training period in a department of pathology were randomly assigned to two groups. A computerized random number allocation was used. The same manuscript was given to both groups. All the students spent the same period of training in the department and they received the same training session about critical appraisal of scientific publications. The intervention group (n=26) performed a critical appraisal of the article using the checklist of a Pubmed-indexed journal and the control group (n=25) performed a free critical appraisal. The individual critical appraisal forms were evaluated using a scoring-based-checklist. A one-way ANOVA test was used to compare the scores between both groups using SPSS software (version 11.0).
Results: 51 students were enrolled in this study. The mean score of the participants using free appraisal reached 16.5 in men and 13.25 in women. The mean scores in the intervention group reached 14.83 in men and 14.75 in women. The mean scores in the control group reached 13.65 and 14.42 in the intervention group (p=0.61).
Conclusion: these results highlighted the absence of significant difference in critical appraisal skills when using or not a checklist. This result has to be taken with caution because all the participants received the same training methods during the same period.