Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2001

Open Access 01-12-2001 | Research article

Improving question formulation for use in evidence appraisal in a tertiary care setting: a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN66375463]

Authors: Elmer V Villanueva, Elizabeth A Burrows, Paul A Fennessy, Meera Rajendran, Jeremy N Anderson

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2001

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The specificity of clinical questions is gauged by explicit descriptions of four dimensions: subjects, interventions, comparators and outcomes of interest. This study determined whether adding simple instructions and examples on clinical question formulation would increase the specificity of the submitted question compared to using a standard form without instructions and examples.

Methods

A randomised controlled trial was conducted in an evidence-search and appraisal service. New participants were invited to reformulate clinical queries. The Control Group was given no instructions. The Intervention Group was given a brief explanation of proper formulation, written instructions, and diagrammatic examples. The primary outcome was the change in the proportion of reformulated questions that described each the dimensions of specificity.

Results

Fifty-two subjects agreed to participate in the trial of which 13 were lost to follow-up. The remaining 17 Intervention Group and 22 Control Group participants were analysed. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Overall, 20% of initially submitted questions from both groups were properly specified (defined as an explicit statement describing all dimensions of specificity). On follow-up, 7/14 questions previously rated as mis-specified in the Intervention Group had all dimensions described at follow-up (p = 0.008) while the Control Group did not show any changes from baseline. Participants in the Intervention Group were also more likely to explicitly describe patients (p = 0.028), comparisons (p = 0.014), and outcomes (p = 0.008).

Conclusions

This trial demonstrated the positive impact of specific instructions on the proportion of properly-specified clinical queries. The evaluation of the long-term impact of such changes is an area of continued research.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group: Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA. 1992, 268: 2420-5.CrossRef Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group: Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA. 1992, 268: 2420-5.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Counsell C: Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997, 127: 380-7.CrossRefPubMed Counsell C: Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997, 127: 380-7.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS: The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995, 123: A12-3.PubMed Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS: The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995, 123: A12-3.PubMed
6.
go back to reference Sackett D, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes R: Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone;. 1998 Sackett D, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes R: Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone;. 1998
7.
go back to reference Richardson WS: Ask, and ye shall retrieve. Evidence-Based Medicine. 1998, 3: 100- Richardson WS: Ask, and ye shall retrieve. Evidence-Based Medicine. 1998, 3: 100-
8.
go back to reference Booth A, O'Rourke AJ, Ford NJ: Structuring the pre-search reference interview: a useful technique for handling clinical questions. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 2000, 88: 239-46.PubMedPubMedCentral Booth A, O'Rourke AJ, Ford NJ: Structuring the pre-search reference interview: a useful technique for handling clinical questions. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 2000, 88: 239-46.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Anderson JN, Fennessy PA, Fennessy GA, Schattner RL, Burrows EA: "Picking winners": assessing new health technology. Med J Aust. 1999, 171: 557-9.PubMed Anderson JN, Fennessy PA, Fennessy GA, Schattner RL, Burrows EA: "Picking winners": assessing new health technology. Med J Aust. 1999, 171: 557-9.PubMed
10.
go back to reference Anderson JN, Burrows EA, Fennessy PA, Shaw S: An 'evidence centre' in a general hospital: finding and evaluating the best available evidence for clinicians. Evidence-Based Medicine. 1999, 4: 102- Anderson JN, Burrows EA, Fennessy PA, Shaw S: An 'evidence centre' in a general hospital: finding and evaluating the best available evidence for clinicians. Evidence-Based Medicine. 1999, 4: 102-
11.
go back to reference Casarett D, Karlawish JH, Sugarman J: Determining when quality improvement initiatives should be considered research: proposed criteria and potential implications. JAMA. 2000, 283: 2275-80. 10.1001/jama.283.17.2275.CrossRefPubMed Casarett D, Karlawish JH, Sugarman J: Determining when quality improvement initiatives should be considered research: proposed criteria and potential implications. JAMA. 2000, 283: 2275-80. 10.1001/jama.283.17.2275.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Stata 7.0. College Station, Texas, USA:. Stata Corporation. Stata 7.0. College Station, Texas, USA:. Stata Corporation.
13.
go back to reference Vickers AJ: The use of percentage change from baseline as an outcome in a controlled trial is statistically inefficient: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2001, 1: 6-10.1186/1471-2288-1-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Vickers AJ: The use of percentage change from baseline as an outcome in a controlled trial is statistically inefficient: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2001, 1: 6-10.1186/1471-2288-1-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, Gotzsche PC, Lang T: The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001, 134: 663-94.CrossRefPubMed Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, Gotzsche PC, Lang T: The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001, 134: 663-94.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Gorman PN, Helfand M: Information seeking in primary care: how physicians choose which clinical questions to pursue and which to leave unanswered. Med Decis Making. 1995, 15: 113-9.CrossRefPubMed Gorman PN, Helfand M: Information seeking in primary care: how physicians choose which clinical questions to pursue and which to leave unanswered. Med Decis Making. 1995, 15: 113-9.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Covell DG, Uman GC, Manning PR: Information needs in office practice: are they being met?. Ann Intern Med. 1985, 103: 596-9.CrossRefPubMed Covell DG, Uman GC, Manning PR: Information needs in office practice: are they being met?. Ann Intern Med. 1985, 103: 596-9.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Ebell MH, Bergus GR, Levy BT, Chambliss ML, Evans ER: Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care. BMJ. 1999, 319: 358-61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Ebell MH, Bergus GR, Levy BT, Chambliss ML, Evans ER: Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care. BMJ. 1999, 319: 358-61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference McColl A, Smith H, White P, Field J: General practitioner's perceptions of the route to evidence based medicine: a questionnaire survey. BMJ. 1998, 316: 361-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral McColl A, Smith H, White P, Field J: General practitioner's perceptions of the route to evidence based medicine: a questionnaire survey. BMJ. 1998, 316: 361-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Feinstein AR, Horwitz RI: Problems in the "evidence" of "evidence-based medicine". Am J Med. 1997, 103: 529-35. 10.1016/S0002-9343(97)00244-1.CrossRefPubMed Feinstein AR, Horwitz RI: Problems in the "evidence" of "evidence-based medicine". Am J Med. 1997, 103: 529-35. 10.1016/S0002-9343(97)00244-1.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Chambliss ML, Conley J: Answering clinical questions. J Fam Pract. 1996, 43: 140-4.PubMed Chambliss ML, Conley J: Answering clinical questions. J Fam Pract. 1996, 43: 140-4.PubMed
21.
go back to reference Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Gorman PN, Ebell MH, Chambliss ML, Pifer EA, Stavri PZ: A taxonomy of generic clinical questions: classification study. BMJ. 2000, 321: 429-32. 10.1136/bmj.321.7258.429.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Gorman PN, Ebell MH, Chambliss ML, Pifer EA, Stavri PZ: A taxonomy of generic clinical questions: classification study. BMJ. 2000, 321: 429-32. 10.1136/bmj.321.7258.429.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Improving question formulation for use in evidence appraisal in a tertiary care setting: a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN66375463]
Authors
Elmer V Villanueva
Elizabeth A Burrows
Paul A Fennessy
Meera Rajendran
Jeremy N Anderson
Publication date
01-12-2001
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2001
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-1-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2001

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2001 Go to the issue