The EBP-structured case conference group also scored higher on EBP application than the didactic lecture group (18.7 vs. 15.3, P=0.001)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? In the same randomised trial, the EBP conference group scored higher than the didactic lecture group on EBP application: 18.7 (4.3) vs. 15.3 (3.9), P=0.001. → Kyriakoulis Konstantinos 2016
Evidence¶
Kyriakoulis Konstantinos 2016¶
Kyriakoulis Konstantinos, Patelarou Athina, Laliotis Aggelos, Wan Andrew C, Matalliotakis Michail, Tsiou Chrysoula, Patelarou Evridiki. (2016). Educational strategies for teaching evidence-based practice to undergraduate health students: systematic review. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5066070/
q3 · i? · review · r2
Randomised controlled trial comparing a weekly EBP-structured case conference with didactic lectures for final-year medical students (n=94) in Taiwan. Table 2 reports "EBP-P: 18.7 (4.3) vs. 15.3 (3.9), P=0.001" for the application domain, alongside the knowledge-domain difference.
"EBP-P: 18.7 (4.3) vs. 15.3 (3.9), P=0.001"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.