Table 2 Proportion of medical students who changed in agreement to different statements and confidence on various aspects biomedical research, n (%)

Agreement with statement:

P-value^b

 I would like to learn more about biostatistics.

Decreased

37/329 (11.2)

4/44 (9.1)

0 (0.0)

4 (13.8)

2/36 (5.6)

9 (19.1)

18/153 (11.8)

< 0.001*

Increased

62/329 (18.8)

3/44 (6.8)

11 (55.0)

11 (37.9)

4/36 (11.1)

10 (21.3)

23/153 (15.0)

 I can understand almost all of the statistical terms that I encounter in journal articles.

Decreased

43/330 (13.0)

8 (17.8)

5 (25.0)

1 (3.4)

3 (8.1)

2 (4.3)

24/152 (15.8)

0.016*

Increased

111/330 (33.6)

14 (31.1)

9 (45.0)

16 (55.2)

8 (21.6)

15 (31.9)

49/152 (32.2)

 It is easy to manipulate statistics to support results desired by investigators.

Decreased

43/328 (13.1)

11 (24.4)

4 (20.0)

1/28 (3.6)

1/36 (2.8)

1 (2.1)

25/152 (16.4)

< 0.001*

Increased

62/328 (18.9)

5 (11.1)

2 (10.0)

7/28 (25.0)

4/36 (11.1)

15 (31.9)

29/152 (19.1)

 To be an intelligent reader of the biomedical literature, it is necessary to know something about statistics.

Decreased

4/330 (1.2)

1/44 (2.3)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

3/153 (2.0)

< 0.001*

Increased

9/330 (2.7)

6/44 (13.6)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

3/153 (2.0)

 I would like to learn more about research ethics.

Decreased

77/327 (23.5)

8 (17.8)

6/19 (31.6)

7 (24.1)

9 (24.3)

11 (23.4)

36/150 (24.0)

0.888

Increased

31 /327 (9.5)

3 (6.7)

1/19 (5.3)

1 (3.4)

3 (8.1)

5 (10.6)

18/150 (12.0)

 I can understand almost all of the research ethics terms that I encounter in journal articles.

Decreased

37/329 (11.2)

5 (11.1)

4 (20.0)

2 (6.9)

0 (0.0)

3 (6.4)

23/151 (15.2)

0.182

Increased

116/329 (35.3)

15 (33.3)

6 (30.0)

9 (31.0)

11 (29.7)

20 (42.6)

55/151 (36.4)

 To be an intelligent reader of the biomedical literature, it is necessary to know something about research ethics.

Decreased

29/327 (8.9)

2 (4.4)

2/19 (10.5)

1 (3.4)

3 (8.1)

3/46 (6.5)

18/151 (11.9)

0.655

Increased

32/327 (9.8)

4 (8.9)

2/19 (10.5)

1 (3.4)

4 (10.8)

3/46 (6.5)

18/151 (11.9)

 I am confident I can design a study to answer a specific hypothesis.

Decreased

49/328 (14.9)

11/44 (25.0)

4 (20.0)

2 (6.9)

2 (5.4)

8 (17.0)

22/151 (14.6)

0.032*

Increased

99/328 (30.2)

8/44 (18.2)

6 (30.0)

12 (41.4)

10 (27.0)

22 (46.8)

41/151 (27.2)

 I can understand almost all of the study design terms (e.g. sampling, case-control,

Decreased

20/328 (6.1)

3/44 (6.8)

1 (5.0)

0 (0.0)

1 (2.7)

1 (2.1)

14/151 (9.3)

< 0.001*

Increased

128/328 (39.0)

11/44 (25.0)

9 (45.0)

21 (72.4)

15 (40.5)

25 (53.2)

47/151 (31.1)

 To be an intelligent reader of the biomedical literature, it is necessary to know something about study design

Decreased

13/325 (4.0)

2/44 (4.5)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

11/150 (7.3)

0.102

Increased

17/325 (5.2)

2/44 (4.5)

1 (5.0)

1 (3.4)

0 (0.0)

1/45 (2.2)

12/150 (8.0)

Confidence in: Biostatistics

 Interpreting the P value for a given result

Decreased

16/328 (4.9)

1 (2.2)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

1/46 (2.2)

14/152 (9.2)

< 0.001*

Increased

141/328 (43.0)

26 (57.8)

11 (55.0)

16/28 (57.1)

12 (32.4)

25/46 (54.3)

51/152 (33.6)

 Interpreting the implications to clinical practice for a given result from a statistical analysis

Decreased

24/330 (7.3)

1 (2.2)

2 (10.0)

1/28 (3.6)

1 (2.7)

2 (4.3)

17/153 (11.1)

0.097

Increased

133/330 (40.3)

19 (42.2)

12 (60.0)

15/28 (53.6)

15 (40.5)

22 (46.8)

50/153 (32.7)

 Assessing if the correct statistical procedure was used to answer a research question

Decreased

45/327 (13.8)

7/44 (15.9)

9/19 (47.4)

3/28 (10.7)

3 (8.1)

5/46 (10.9)

18/153 (11.8)

< 0.001*

Increased

94/327 (28.7)

7/44 (15.9)

4/19 (21.1)

12/28 (42.9)

12 (32.4)

10/46 (21.7)

49/153 (32.0)

 Identifying the factors that influence the adequacy of a study’s sample size

Decreased

65/330 (19.7)

11 (24.4)

13 (65.0)

4/28 (14.3)

2 (5.4)

6 (12.8)

29/153 (19.0)

< 0.001*

Increased

84/330 (25.5)

9 (20.0)

1 (5.0)

6/28 (21.4)

13 (35.1)

19 (40.4)

36/153 (23.5)

 Evaluating diagnostic tests

Decreased

24/327 (7.3)

2/43 (4.7)

2 (10.0)

2 (6.9)

0 (0.0)

4 (8.5)

14/151 (9.3)

0.154

Increased

152/327 (46.5)

14/43 (32.6)

10 (50.0)

18 (62.1)

21 (56.8)

25 (53.2)

64/151 (42.4)

 Analyzing the data to find association between two variables

Decreased

52/328 (15.9)

8/44 (18.2)

5 (25.0)

3 (10.3)

1 (2.7)

6 (12.8)

29/151 (19.2)

0.039*

Increased

88/328 (26.8)

4/44 (9.1)

6 (30.0)

12 (41.4)

13 (35.1)

12 (25.5)

41/151 (27.2)

 Analyzing the data to find correlation between two variables

Decreased

57/328 (17.4)

7/44 (15.9)

6 (30.0)

2 (6.9)

1 (2.7)

9 (19.1)

32/151 (21.2)

< 0.001*

Increased

84/328 (25.6)

4/44 (9.1)

5 (25.0)

15 (51.7)

12 (32.4)

9 (19.1)

39/151 (25.8)

 Applying ethical principles (e.g. confidentiality, beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy)

Decreased

23/323 (7.1)

3 (6.7)

1/19 (5.3)

3/27 (11.1)

1 (2.7)

6 (12.8)

9/148 (6.1)

0.021*

Increased

64/323 (19.8)

6 (13.3)

3/19 (15.8)

3/27 (11.1)

14 (37.8)

15 (31.9)

23/148 (15.5)

 Applying for an approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) / Ethics Committee

Decreased

21/324 (6.5)

7 (15.6)

3 (15.0)

1/26 (3.8)

1 (2.7)

2 (4.3)

7/149 (4.7)

0.043*

Increased

146/324 (45.1)

14 (31.1)

5 (25.0)

10/26 (38.5)

21 (56.8)

26 (55.3)

70/149 (47.0)

 Criteria to justify authorship in research journal publications

Decreased

27/324 (8.3)

7 (15.6)

1/19 (5.3)

3/28 (10.7)

1 (2.7)

0 (0.0)

15/149 (10.1)

0.005*

Increased

113/324 (34.9)

5 (11.1)

5/19 (26.3)

8/28 (28.6)

19 (51.4)

20/46 (43.5)

56/149 (37.6)

 Awareness of the actions that constitute publication misconduct

Decreased

47/319 (14.7)

5 (11.1)

4 (20.0)

3/28 (10.7)

2 (5.4)

3/46 (6.5)

30/143 (21.0)

0.017*

Increased

94/319 (29.5)

9 (20.0)

3 (15.0)

6/28 (21.4)

18 (48.6)

16/46 (34.8)

42/143 (29.4)

 Knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of each study design

Decreased

19/327 (5.8)

4/43 (9.3)

1 (5.0)

1 (3.4)

0 (0.0)

1 (2.1)

12/151 (7.9)

0.081*

Increased

145/327 (44.3)

12/43 (27.9)

14 (70.0)

16 (55.2)

17 (45.9)

22 (46.8)

64/151 (42.4)

 Identifying ways of reducing bias when designing studies

Decreased

48/328 (14.6)

12/44 (27.3)

4 (20.0)

1 (3.4)

3 (8.1)

4 (8.5)

24/151 (15.9)

< 0.001*

Increased

106/328 (32.3)

1/44 (2.3)

8 (40.0)

21 (72.4)

15 (40.5)

19 (40.4)

42/151 (27.8)