Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Macauley, D.
Right arrow Articles by Mccrum, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Macauley, D.
Right arrow Articles by Mccrum, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 16, No. 1, 90-93
© Oxford University Press 1999

Critical appraisal using the READER method: a workshop-based controlled trial

Domhnall Macauley and Evelyn Mccrum

Division of Epidemiology, The Queen's University of Belfast, Mulhouse Building, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast BT12 6BJ, UK.

Background. Critical reading is an important skill for those trying to practice evidence-based medicine. There are a number of recognized structures for critical reading, including the READER model. These methods should be subjected to high-quality studies.

Objectives. We aimed to evaluate the READER method in a practical teaching setting using the highest quality research methodology.

Methods. We carried out a modified randomized controlled trial. Two groups of GP trainers were invited to appraise critically the two articles using either the READER acronym or a semi-structured free appraisal.

Results. Of 99 participants in the workshop, 92 completed the study. One-third of participants (33.7%) read more than five articles per month and those who had been in practice the longest read fewer articles (P < 0.05). Both groups attributed the lowest score to paper 2. The median total scores were higher using the READER method, although only significant for paper 2 (P < 0.05). The median score attributed to the methodology was lower using the READER method than the free appraisal, although this difference was only significant for paper 1 (P < 0.05). Overall, 51% (70% of the READER group) believed that taking part in the exercise would encourage them to be more critical of published articles in the future.

Conclusion. Those using the READER method attributed a higher total score, but were more critical of the methodology than those using a free appraisal. Participants found the study useful and believed that it would be of help in future critical appraisal. The study raises interesting questions about the relative importance to GPs of methodological rigour compared with other factors when evaluating research papers.

Keywords. Controlled trial, critical reading, family practice..


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. Sports. Med.Home page
C Bleakley and D MacAuley
The quality of research in sports journals
Br. J. Sports Med., April 1, 2002; 36(2): 124 - 125.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.