medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-5057 (Print)
Investigación en Educación Médica

2021, Number 39

<< Back Next >>

Inv Ed Med 2021; 10 (39)

How to construct an instrument to evaluate critical appraisal

Cobos-Aguilar H

Language: Spanish
References: 38
Page: 96-105
PDF size: 500.15 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Research and critical appraisal of published medical reports (CAPMR), when conducted, is pivotal to refine clinical activity. Medical publications grow exponentially, and a superior CAPMR improves the selection of articles that follow a robust methodology. Despite its relevance, university programs do not emphasize learning of the necessary techniques. Most studies designed to measure the degree of CAPMR lack validity and consistency, leading to difficulties in the educational decisionmaking process in this area.
Objective: To share the construction process of a CAPMR evaluation instrument in the setting of participative education.
Methods: We present the required steps to construct an instrument to appraise CAPMR. Critical reading/appraisal is defined as the reader´s confrontation of the text, and includes interpretation (what is implicit in the text, recognition of the methodology components), judgment (pondering of the consulted article´s components), and proposals (conceiving components that are superior to those presented by the author), all based on the reader´s experience and context. The different designs and headings that an instrument of this nature must include are presented. We propose how to draft the summary of an article, as well as the roots from which items are derived and that explore the three previously mentioned indicators, the Delphi technique as well as suggestions to determine the study´s consistency.
Results: We compiled a summary of Case Control Study, as an example, and a listing of the three indicators, a table that identifies them and the sequence of the indispensable steps to be followed in a report such as this.
Conclusions: Instruments to measure CAPMR must follow a rigorous construction process and will lead to better educational decisions.


REFERENCES

  1. Kang H. How to understand and conduct evidence-based medicine. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2016;69(5):435-45.

  2. Kharraz R, Hamadah R, Alfawaz D, Attasi J, Obeidat AS, Alkattan W, et al. Perceived barriers towards participation in undergraduate research activities among medical students at Alfaisal University - College of Medicine: A Saudi Arabian perspective. Med Teach. 2016;38:S12-S18.

  3. Aguirre-Raya KA, Castilla-Peón MF, Barajas-Nava LA, Torres- Rodríguez V, Muñoz-Hernández O, Garduño-Espinosa J. Self-perception and knowledge of evidence based medicine by physicians. [Internet] BMC Med Educ; 2016 [Citado 2020 Diciembre 25]. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/ s12909-016-0681-6.

  4. Stone C, Dogbey GY, Klenzak S, Van Fossen K, Tan B, Brannan GD. Contemporary global perspectives of medical students on research during undergraduate medical education: a systematic literature review. [Internet] Med Educ Online; 2018 [Citado 2020 Diciembre 25] Disponible en: https://doi. org/10.1080/10872981.2018.1537430.

  5. Sammaraiee Y, Mistry RD, Lim J, Wittner L, Deepak S, Lim G. Peer-assisted learning: filling the gaps in basic science education for preclinical medical students. Adv Physiol Educ. 2016;40(3):297-303.

  6. Viniegra-Velázquez L. Las aptitudes para leer críticamente la información, prioridades ignoradas en la formación de los médicos. Inv ed Med. 2012;1(4):199-209.

  7. Cobos Aguilar H. Lectura crítica de investigación en educación médica. Inv ed Med. 2016;5(18):115-20.

  8. Katrak P, Bialocerkowski AE, Massy-Westropp N, Kumar VSS, Grimmer KA. A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004;4:1-11.

  9. Crowe M, Sheppard L. A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: Alternative tool structure is proposed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(1):79-89.

  10. Munthe-Kaas HM, Glenton C, Booth A, Noyes J, Lewin S. Systematic mapping of existing tools to appraise methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative research: First stage in the development of the CAMELOT tool. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):1-14.

  11. Departament of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistic MMUHSC. How to read clinical journals: I. Why to read them and how to start reading them critically. Can Med Assoc J. 1981;124(5):555-8.

  12. Departament of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistic MMUHSC. How to read clinical journals: II. To learn about a diagnostic test. Can Med Assoc J. 1981;124(6):703-10.

  13. Departament of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistic MMUHSC. How to read clinical journals: III. To learn the clinical course and prognosis of disease. Can Med Assoc J. 1981;124(7):869-72.

  14. Departament of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistic MMUHSC. How to read clinical journals: IV. To determine etiology or causation. Can Med Assoc J. 1981;124(8):985-90.

  15. Departament of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistic MMUHSC. How to read clinical journals: V. To distinguish useful from useles or even harmful therapy. Can Med Assoc J. 1981;124(9):1156-62.

  16. Riegelman RK, Hirsch RP. Cómo estudiar un estudio y probar una prueba: lectura crítica de la literatura médica. 2ª ed. Washinton, D.C.: OPS,1992 (Publicación científica; 531).

  17. Sackett D, Haynes B, Guyatt G, Tugwell P. Clinical Epidemiology: A basic science for clinical medicine. 2nd Ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company;1991.

  18. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2nd ed. Edinbourgh. Churchill Livingstone; 2000.

  19. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP. Qualitative Checklist. [Internet] 2018 [citado 2020 Diciembre 25]. Disponible en: https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CASPQualitative- Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf

  20. Critical appraisal Skills Programme. CASP. Case Control Study Checklist. [Internet] 2018 [citado 2020 Diciembre 25]. Disponible en: https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ CASP-Case-Control-Study-Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf

  21. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP. Cohort Study Checklist. [Internet] 2018 [citado 2020 Diciembre 25]. Disponible en: https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ CASP-Cohort-Study-Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf

  22. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP. Diagnostic Checklist. [Internet] 2018 [citado 2020 Diciembre 25]. Disponible en: https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ CASP-Diagnostic-Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf

  23. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP. Randomised Con- trolled Trial Checklist. [Internet] 2020 [citado 2020 Diciembre 25]. Disponible en: https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/ 2020/10/CASP_RCT_Checklist_PDF_Fillable_Form.pdf

  24. Cobos-Aguilar H, Viniegra-Velázquez L, Pérez-Cortés P. Papel de la discusión creadora en el aprendizaje de la lectura crítica de artículos científicos. Rev Invest Clin. 2011;63(3):268-78.

  25. Cobos-Aguilar H, Espinosa-Alarcón P, Viniegra-Velázquez L. Comparación de dos estrategias educativas en la lectura crítica de médicos residentes. Rev Investig Clin. 1996; 48(6)431-6.

  26. Lira SC, Varela A. Aptitud para la lectura crítica de estudios de investigación clínica en médicos especialistas en adiestramiento. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2007;75(11):678-81.

  27. Cabrera-Pivaral CE, González-Pérez GJ, Vega-López MG, Recinos-Girón JJ, Zavala-González MA, Alonso-Álvarez MA. Intervención educativa en médicos residentes para el dominio de lectura crítica de reportes de investigación. Inv ed Med. 2015;4(15):119-25.

  28. Cobos-Aguilar H, Pérez-Cortés P, Ramírez-Munguía M, Tapia- Orozco JA. Lectura crítica de investigación en estudiantes de medicina. Efectos a un año. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2006;44(Supl 3):S85-S91.

  29. Tsai YS, Fang TP, Chi CC. A scale for measuring evidencesearching capability: A development and validation study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019;25(4):676-81.

  30. Checya-Segura J, Moquillaza-Alcántara VH. Factores asociados con preeclampsia severa en pacientes atendidas en dos hopsitales en Huánuco, Perú. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2019; 87(5):295-301.

  31. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014 Dec;12(12):1495-9.

  32. Montgomery P, Grant S, Mayo-Wilson E, Macdonald G, Michie S, Hopewell S, et al. Reporting randomised trials of social and psychological interventions: the CONSORT-SPI 2018 extension. Trials. 2018;19(1):1-14.

  33. Linares-Espinós E, Hernández V, Domínguez-Escrig JL, Fernández- Pello S, Hevia V, Mayor J, et al. Metodología de una revisión sistemática. Actas Urol Esp. 2018;42(8):499-506.

  34. Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JSW, Zhang C, Li S, Sun F, et al. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: A systematic review. J Evid Based Med. 2015;8(1):2-10.

  35. Viniegra-Velázquez L. Algunas consideraciones comparativas entre los exámenes de opción múltiple tipo “una de cinco” y Falso/Verdadero/No Sé. Rev Invest Clínica. 1979;(31):413-20.

  36. Sadi J, Torchia E, Faber KJ, Macdermid J, Lalonde C, Watson L, et al. Posterior shoulder instability classification, assessment, and management: An international Delphi study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2020;50(7):373-80.

  37. Valdés MG, Marín MS. El método Delphi para la consulta a expertos en la investigación científica. Rev Cuba Salud Pública. 2013;39(2):253-67.

  38. Campo-Arias A, Oviedo HC. Propiedades Psicométricas de una Escala: la Consistencia Interna. [Internet] Revista de Salud Pública 2008 [citado 2020 Diciembre 26]. Disponible en: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=42210515




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com