0
Correspondence |

The American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Educational Guidelines for Continuing Medical Education Interventions: Estimating Effect Size FREE TO VIEW

Spyridon S. Marinopoulos, MD, MBA; Todd Dorman, MD; Eric B. Bass, MD, MPH
Author and Funding Information

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore, MD

Correspondence to: Spyridon S. Marinopoulos, MD, MBA, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, 401 N Caroline St, Baltimore, MD 21231; e-mail: smarino1@jhmi.edu


Dr. Marinopoulos was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for the systematic review of the effectiveness of CME. He participated in the Genentech Independent Medical Education Advisory Board for 1 year following the publication of the AHRQ evidence report. Dr. Dorman was funded by the AHRQ for the systematic review of the effectiveness of CME. He is the Associate Dean of CME at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Dr. Bass was funded by the AHRQ for the systematic review of the effectiveness of CME.

Reproduction of this article is prohibited without written permission from the American College of Chest Physicians (www.chestjournal.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtml).


© 2009 American College of Chest Physicians


Chest. 2009;136(3):947-948. doi:10.1378/chest.09-0826
Text Size: A A A
Published online

To the Editor:

We appreciate the commentary of Norman1 regarding the methodology of our evidence-based review of the effectiveness of continuing medical education (CME), and agree with him that reporting effect size can be extremely useful in reporting results.2

Synthesizing the results of educational interventions represents one of the methodological challenges to performing systematic reviews in health care.3 The studies in our review differed in many important ways (used nonstandardized definitions of CME and targeted multiple types of objectives across vastly different audiences and content areas), and often were flawed in the metrics they used and in how those metrics were reported.4

These limitations in the primary literature led to a qualitative synthesis of the evidence, as an aggregate estimate of effect size could have implied greater confidence in the results than would have been appropriate.

In conclusion, we strongly lend our voice to the importance of estimating effect size in systematic reviews of educational interventions and recommend that original studies of CME give more attention to using valid measures of effectiveness that would allow such estimates.

Norman G. The American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based educational guidelines for continuing medical education interventions: a critical review of evidence-based educational guidelines. Chest. 2009;135:834-837. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
 
Marinopoulos SS, Dorman T, Ratanawongsa N, et al. Effectiveness of continuing medical education: evidence report/technology assessment No. 149 (prepared by the Johns Hopkins Evidence-based Practice Center, under contract No. 290-02-0018). 2007; 1 Rockville, MD Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality AHRQ Publication No. 07-E006.
 
Reed D, Price EG, Windish DM, et al. Challenges in systematic reviews of educational intervention studies. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1080-1089. [PubMed]
 
Ratanawongsa N, Thomas PA, Marinopoulos SS, et al. The reported validity and reliability of methods for evaluating continuing medical education: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2008;83:274-283. [PubMed]
 

Figures

Tables

References

Norman G. The American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based educational guidelines for continuing medical education interventions: a critical review of evidence-based educational guidelines. Chest. 2009;135:834-837. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
 
Marinopoulos SS, Dorman T, Ratanawongsa N, et al. Effectiveness of continuing medical education: evidence report/technology assessment No. 149 (prepared by the Johns Hopkins Evidence-based Practice Center, under contract No. 290-02-0018). 2007; 1 Rockville, MD Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality AHRQ Publication No. 07-E006.
 
Reed D, Price EG, Windish DM, et al. Challenges in systematic reviews of educational intervention studies. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1080-1089. [PubMed]
 
Ratanawongsa N, Thomas PA, Marinopoulos SS, et al. The reported validity and reliability of methods for evaluating continuing medical education: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2008;83:274-283. [PubMed]
 
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543