Robles Páramo A, Viniegra Velázquez L, Espinosa Alarcón P
Hospital de Especialidades C.M. La Raza, México, D.F.
Rev Invest Clin. 1997 Mar-Apr;49(2):117-22.
To explore the association of length of clinical training and ability to read critically clinical research papers in groups of residents of internal medicine.
An instrument to evaluate critical reading was developed validated by four experts in clinical epidemiology. It contains four abstract from international medical journals. Each article was followed by 20 questions of false/true/ do not know options: 42 were interpretation items and 38 were judgement items. Each article had a semantic differential scale from 1 to 10 of global value of the paper. Seventy internal medicine residents participated: 20 in their first year of residency, 31 in the second year and 19 in the third year.
There were no differences between overall scores according to year of training (global median score of 22.5 out of 80 as a maximum). Globally the interpretation items reached a median of 22 versus 9 in the in the judgement items (p < 0.01). A tendency to underestimate the validity of the articles by the residents was observed, i.e. their overall validity was significantly lower than that of the experts (p < 0.001). Finally, there was a correlation of 0.45 between the scores in this study and those obtained during their medical studies.
These groups of residents were not influenced by length of their training during their internal medicine residency and their ability to judge clinical investigation papers.
探讨内科住院医师临床培训时长与批判性阅读临床研究论文能力之间的关联。
开发了一种用于评估批判性阅读的工具，并经临床流行病学领域的四位专家验证。该工具包含四篇国际医学期刊的摘要。每篇文章后有20道判断题、选择题（是/否/不知道选项）：42道为解释性题目，38道为判断性题目。每篇文章都有一个从1到10的语义差异量表，用于评估论文的整体价值。70名内科住院医师参与研究：20名处于住院医师培训第一年，31名处于第二年，19名处于第三年。
根据培训年份划分的总体得分之间无差异（满分80分，总体中位数得分为22.5分）。总体而言，解释性题目的中位数为22分，而判断性题目的中位数为9分（p < 0.01）。观察到住院医师有低估文章有效性的倾向，即其整体有效性显著低于专家的评估（p < 0.001）。最后，本研究中的得分与他们在医学学习期间获得的得分之间的相关性为0.45。
这些住院医师群体在内科住院医师培训期间，其培训时长未对他们判断临床研究论文的能力产生影响。
