Skip to main content

Table. 5 Self-reported understanding of evidence-based healthcare-related terms among Sudanese medical students (n = 761)

From: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) for undergraduate medical students in Sudan: sources of information, knowledge about terms, skills related to EBM and attitude toward EBM in Sudan

  I understand and I could explain to others. Some understanding. Do not understand, but would like to understand. Do not understand, but I think, it wouldn’t be helpful to me to understand No idea about this
Terms related to study design:
 Case report 335 (44.0 %) 279 (36.7 %) 110 (14.5 %) 11 (1.4 %) 26 (3.4 %)
 Cohort study 286 (37.6 %) 278 (36.5 %) 135 (17.7 %) 13 (1.7 %) 49 (6.4 %)
 Randomized Controlled clinical trial 202 (26.5 %) 276 (36.3 %) 203 (26.7 %) 24 (3.2 %) 56 (7.4 %)
 Meta-analysis 115 (15.1 %) 275 (36.1 %) 277 (36.4 %) 28 (3.7 %) 66 (8.7 %)
 Systematic review 200 (26.3 %) 280 (36.8 %) 212 (27.9 %) 19 (2.5 %) 50 (6.6 %)
 Cross-sectional study 315 (41.4 %) 244 (32.1 %) 153 (20.1 %) 16 (2.1 %) 33 (4.3 %)
 Case–control study 342 (44.9 %) 235 (30.9 %) 139 (18.3 %) 14 (1.8 %) 31 (4.1 %)
Terms related to statistics:
 Confidence interval 146 (19.2 %) 284 (37.3 %) 236 (31.0 %) 20 (2.6 %) 75 (9.9 %)
 Sample size 330 (43.4 %) 250 (32.9 %) 122 (16.0 %) 17 (2.2 %) 42 (5.5 %)
 Mode 292 (38.4 %) 212 (27.9 %) 176 (23.1 %) 18 (2.4 %) 63 (8.3 %)
 Median 334 (43.9 %) 203 (26.7 %) 155 (20.4 %) 13 (1.7 %) 56 (7.4 %)
 Interquartile range (IQR) 146 (19.2 %) 239 (31.4 %) 263 (34.6 %) 31 (4.1 %) 82 (10.8 %)
 Standard deviation (SD) 248 (32.6 %) 250 (32.9 %) 174 (22.9 %) 28 (3.7 %) 61 (8.0 %)
 Precision and accuracy 145 (19.1 %) 245 (32.2 %) 269 (35.3 %) 27 (3.5 %) 75 (9.9 %)
 Representative sample 213 (28.0 %) 260 (34.2 %) 201 (26.4 %) 23 (3.0 %) 64 (8.4 %)
 Test power 103 (13.5 %) 233 (30.6 %) 305 (40.1 %) 29 (3.8 %) 91 (12.0 %)
P-value 146 (19.2 %) 252 (33.1 %) 241 (31.7 %) 32 (4.2 %) 90 (11.8 %)
 Type I and type II errors 114 (15.0 %) 247 (32.5 %) 281 (36.9 %) 26 (3.4 %) 93 (12.2 %)
Terms related to Epidemiology:
 Relative risk 248 (32.6 %) 275 (36.1 %) 170 (22.3 %) 15 (2.0 %) 53 (7.0 %)
 Absolute risk 223 (29.3 %) 273 (35.9 %) 197 (25.9 %) 19 (2.5 %) 49 (6.4 %)
 Odds ratio 175 (23.0 %) 269 (35.3 %) 227 (29.8 %) 22 (2.9 %) 68 (8.9 %)
 NNT (number needed to treat) 118 (15.5 %) 223 (29.3 %) 302 (39.7 %) 23 (3.0 %) 95 (12.5 %)
 Sensitivity of a diagnostic test 238 (31.3 %) 233 (30.6 %) 213 (28.0 %) 23 (3.0 %) 54 (7.1 %)
 Specificity of a diagnostic test 232 (30.5 %) 235 (30.9 %) 221 (29.0 %) 18 (2.4 %) 55 (7.2 %)
 Heterogeneity 138 (18.1 %) 213 (28.0 %) 296 (38.9 %) 34 (4.5 %) 80 (10.5 %)
 Publication bias 146 (19.2 %) 227 (29.8 %) 276 (36.3 %) 26 (3.4 %) 86 (11.3 %)
 Lost to follow-up 187 (24.6 %) 238 (31.3 %) 224 (29.4 %) 29 (3.8 %) 83 (10.9 %)
 Randomization 270 (35.5 %) 247 (32.5 %) 164 (21.6 %) 21 (2.8 %) 59 (7.8 %)
 Intention-to-treat analysis 115 (15.1 %) 211 (27.7 %) 310 (40.7 %) 24 (3.2 %) 101 (13.3 %)
 Prevalence 332 (43.6 %) 241 (31.7 %) 123 (16.2 %) 20 (2.6 %) 45 (5.9 %)
 Incidence 347 (45.6 %) 232 (30.5 %) 118 (15.5 %) 23 (3.0 %) 41 (5.4 %)
 Positive predictive value 163 (21.4 %) 231 (30.4 %) 260 (34.2 %) 28 (3.7 %) 79 (10.4 %)
 Hierarchy of evidence 117 (15.4 %) 200 (26.3 %) 315 (41.4 %) 28 (3.7 %) 101 (13.3 %)
 Clinical effectiveness 146 (19.2 %) 246 (32.3 %) 274 (36.0 %) 27 (3.5 %) 68 (8.9 %)
 Practical guideline 160 (21.0 %) 258 (33.9 %) 255 (33.5 %) 21 (2.8 %) 67 (8.8 %)
 Evidence-based medicine 230 (30.2 %) 279 (36.7 %) 186 (24.4 %) 23 (3.0 %) 43 (5.7 %)
  1. Data were presented as number (percentage)