Palliative Care and End of Life Issues |

Comparison of Two Literature Appraisal Methods on Critical Care Fellowship FREE TO VIEW

Ronaldo Sevilla Berrios; John OHoro; Srikant Nannapaneni; Kianoush Kashani
Author and Funding Information

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

Chest. 2014;146(4_MeetingAbstracts):685A. doi:10.1378/chest.1993663
Text Size: A A A
Published online


SESSION TITLE: End-of-Life Care Posters

SESSION TYPE: Original Investigation Poster

PRESENTED ON: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 01:30 PM - 02:30 PM

PURPOSE: Journal club and literature appraisal are essential to the education of every postdoctoral trainee. The Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires programs to include journal clubs in resident and fellow curricula. As part of an educational improvement project for the didactic program for our Critical Care Fellowship, we tried to compare two methods of literature appraisal in a Critical Care Fellowship: a traditional single-article “Evidence-Based Medicine focused” (EBM) versus a novel “literature-update-focused” journal club.

METHODS: The new literature review format was piloted where three fellows were asked to choose a recent article and review them in a short presentation (10 minutes maximum). Presenters were told to emphasize the relevance of the article to clinical practice. Each presentation was followed by 10 minutes of questions with both faculty and fellows. The traditional EBM format assigned fellows a single article to review for 1 hour, focusing on critical analysis of methods and interpretation, as well as statistical aspects of research. A survey was administered to fellows to determine satisfaction and preferences after experiencing both formats.

RESULTS: A total of 10 critical care fellows participated in the survey of 17 possible candidates (59% response rate). All participant had had previous formal teaching by EBM journal club involvement and 90% of the those had a high self-reported level of expertise on reviewing scientific literature (5 or higher on a 7 point Likert scale). 70% of the participants considered 3 articles were too many to review per session. However fellows expressed a strong preference (90%) for using the EBM journal club format to teach statistical evaluation. In response to which format they preferred overall, 40% stated EBM journal club, 40% the novel literature-update-focused journal club, and 20% undecided. Based on the feedback received from the fellows, literature-update-focused journal club review format was modified to have fewer articles (2 articles per session), and more discussion.

CONCLUSIONS: EBM and literature-update-focused review are both useful modalities for conveying recent literature to critical care fellows.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Both EBM and the literature-update-focused journal club formats can be used as complementary modules in a comprehensive medical education curriculum.

DISCLOSURE: The following authors have nothing to disclose: Ronaldo Sevilla Berrios, John OHoro, Srikant Nannapaneni, Kianoush Kashani

No Product/Research Disclosure Information




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.

Find Similar Articles
CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543