Table 3 Self-perceived competence in EBM: students' responses shown in proportions for the questions four to sixteen, each with four response ratings
Question | Frequency of response (percentage) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Understanding of an article: 4. Introduction | "Not at all" | " Partially" | "Sufficiently but not fully" | "Fully" |
| Â | 0 | 0 | 18(40) | 27(60) |
5. Methods | 0 | 5(11.1) | 35(77.8) | 5(11.1) |
6. Results | 0 | 8(17.8) | 31(68.9) | 6(13.3) |
7. Conclusion | 0 | 0 | 22(48.9) | 23(51.1) |
8. Ability to perform critical appraisal | "Have not a clue about critical appraisal" | "Need a lot of guidance in appraising all types of study" | "Confident in appraising only certain types of study" | "Confident in appraising all common types of study" |
| Â | 0 | 2(4.5) | 36(81.8) | 6(13.6) |
Understanding on EBM glossaries 9. Sensitivity/Specificity | "Unaware" | "Heard about it" | "Understand" | "Can explain" |
| Â | 0 | 2(4.4) | 27(60.0) | 16(35.6) |
10. Predictive values | 0 | 5(11.1) | 29(64.4) | 11(24.4) |
11. Relative risk/Odds ratio | 0 | 2(4.4) | 34(75.6) | 9(20.0) |
12. Absolute risk reduction | 1(2.2) | 14(31.1) | 24(53.3) | 6(13.3) |
13. Number needed to treat (NNT) | 3(6.7) | 19(42.2) | 19(42.2) | 4(8.9) |
14. Randomisation | 0 | 2(4.4) | 21(46.7) | 22(48.9) |
15. Blinding | 0 | 2(4.4) | 21(46.7) | 22(48.9) |
16. Meta-analysis | 0 | 6(13.3) | 26(57.8) | 13(28.9) |