John introduces our critical appraisal chat:
The issue for discussion is whether Librarians should lead the Critical Appraisal agenda within Evidence Based Medicine? We currently lead in terms of finding evidence, but should we also lead in terms of appraising the quality of the evidence found? My view is that Critical Appraisal is actually an extension of our existing skills and expertise and is a lot easier than you might think. To attempt to prove this we are going to appraise a BMJ paper:
Hickson M, D’Souza AL, Muthu N, Rogers TR, Want S, Rajkumar C, Bulpitt CJ. Use of probiotic Lactobacillus preparation to prevent diarrhoea associated with antibiotics: randomised double blind placebo controlled trial. BMJ. 2007 Jul 14;335(7610):80. Epub 2007 Jun 29 http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/335/7610/80.full.pdf
What are your experiences of critical appraisal of clinical evidence? Have you enjoyed, helped, struggled, hated it?
Are librarians the right people in healthcare to be leading appraisal of evidence?
Are there any barriers to librarians leading critical appraisal sessions?
In terms of the paper, questions for this are as follows:
1) What did you think of the paper?
2) Was the paper focused in terms of the population, intervention control and outcomes?
3) Describe the patient
4) Describe the intervention
5) Describe the control used
6) What outcomes were being measured?
7) How did the randomization worked
8) Do the patient groups compare well?
9) Were the patients and staff ‘blind’ – did the patients know what they were drinking?
10) Was there any loss to follow up
11) Was there enough power in the study?
12) What were the results?
13) How precise were the results
14) If you worked for Danone, how would you use this paper to ensure that patients in hospital received Actimel. Who would you market it to?
Join us 8pm on Tuesday the 19th January. Use the hashtag #ukmedlibs