A brief introduction to the critical reading of the clinical literature

Paul G. Shekelle, Gunnar Andersson, Claire Bombardier, Daniel Cherkin, Richard (Rick) Deyo, Robert Keller, Casey Lee, Matthew Liang, Bailey Lipscomb, Kevin Spratt, James Weinstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Clinicians are bombarded by reports of new diagnostic tests or treatments for patients with spine problems. To provide the best possible patient care, clinicians need to be able to critically appraise the results of such studies for validity and relevance to patient care, important questions to be asked ofany descripllon of diagnostic or treatment studies are the following questions: 1) Are the patient described in detail so that you can decide whether they are comparable to those that you see in your practice? 2)Are the treatments or assessments described well enough so that you could provide the same for your patients? 3) Was a clinically relevant endpoint measured? 4) Is an appropriate comparison group? 5)Are potential sources of bias appropriately attended to? 6) Arc the- results clinically significant?.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2028-2031
Number of pages4
JournalSpine
Volume19
Issue number18
StatePublished - 1994
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Reading
Patient Care
Routine Diagnostic Tests
Spine
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Clinical epidemiology
  • Literature appraisal shills

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physiology

Cite this

Shekelle, P. G., Andersson, G., Bombardier, C., Cherkin, D., Deyo, R. R., Keller, R., ... Weinstein, J. (1994). A brief introduction to the critical reading of the clinical literature. Spine, 19(18), 2028-2031.

A brief introduction to the critical reading of the clinical literature. / Shekelle, Paul G.; Andersson, Gunnar; Bombardier, Claire; Cherkin, Daniel; Deyo, Richard (Rick); Keller, Robert; Lee, Casey; Liang, Matthew; Lipscomb, Bailey; Spratt, Kevin; Weinstein, James.

In: Spine, Vol. 19, No. 18, 1994, p. 2028-2031.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Shekelle, PG, Andersson, G, Bombardier, C, Cherkin, D, Deyo, RR, Keller, R, Lee, C, Liang, M, Lipscomb, B, Spratt, K & Weinstein, J 1994, 'A brief introduction to the critical reading of the clinical literature', Spine, vol. 19, no. 18, pp. 2028-2031.
Shekelle PG, Andersson G, Bombardier C, Cherkin D, Deyo RR, Keller R et al. A brief introduction to the critical reading of the clinical literature. Spine. 1994;19(18):2028-2031.
Shekelle, Paul G. ; Andersson, Gunnar ; Bombardier, Claire ; Cherkin, Daniel ; Deyo, Richard (Rick) ; Keller, Robert ; Lee, Casey ; Liang, Matthew ; Lipscomb, Bailey ; Spratt, Kevin ; Weinstein, James. / A brief introduction to the critical reading of the clinical literature. In: Spine. 1994 ; Vol. 19, No. 18. pp. 2028-2031.
@article{e20a7acf934943f4b1b8a2696f8d7c67,
title = "A brief introduction to the critical reading of the clinical literature",
abstract = "Clinicians are bombarded by reports of new diagnostic tests or treatments for patients with spine problems. To provide the best possible patient care, clinicians need to be able to critically appraise the results of such studies for validity and relevance to patient care, important questions to be asked ofany descripllon of diagnostic or treatment studies are the following questions: 1) Are the patient described in detail so that you can decide whether they are comparable to those that you see in your practice? 2)Are the treatments or assessments described well enough so that you could provide the same for your patients? 3) Was a clinically relevant endpoint measured? 4) Is an appropriate comparison group? 5)Are potential sources of bias appropriately attended to? 6) Arc the- results clinically significant?.",
keywords = "Clinical epidemiology, Literature appraisal shills",
author = "Shekelle, {Paul G.} and Gunnar Andersson and Claire Bombardier and Daniel Cherkin and Deyo, {Richard (Rick)} and Robert Keller and Casey Lee and Matthew Liang and Bailey Lipscomb and Kevin Spratt and James Weinstein",
year = "1994",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "2028--2031",
journal = "Spine",
issn = "0362-2436",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "18",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A brief introduction to the critical reading of the clinical literature

AU - Shekelle, Paul G.

AU - Andersson, Gunnar

AU - Bombardier, Claire

AU - Cherkin, Daniel

AU - Deyo, Richard (Rick)

AU - Keller, Robert

AU - Lee, Casey

AU - Liang, Matthew

AU - Lipscomb, Bailey

AU - Spratt, Kevin

AU - Weinstein, James

PY - 1994

Y1 - 1994

N2 - Clinicians are bombarded by reports of new diagnostic tests or treatments for patients with spine problems. To provide the best possible patient care, clinicians need to be able to critically appraise the results of such studies for validity and relevance to patient care, important questions to be asked ofany descripllon of diagnostic or treatment studies are the following questions: 1) Are the patient described in detail so that you can decide whether they are comparable to those that you see in your practice? 2)Are the treatments or assessments described well enough so that you could provide the same for your patients? 3) Was a clinically relevant endpoint measured? 4) Is an appropriate comparison group? 5)Are potential sources of bias appropriately attended to? 6) Arc the- results clinically significant?.

AB - Clinicians are bombarded by reports of new diagnostic tests or treatments for patients with spine problems. To provide the best possible patient care, clinicians need to be able to critically appraise the results of such studies for validity and relevance to patient care, important questions to be asked ofany descripllon of diagnostic or treatment studies are the following questions: 1) Are the patient described in detail so that you can decide whether they are comparable to those that you see in your practice? 2)Are the treatments or assessments described well enough so that you could provide the same for your patients? 3) Was a clinically relevant endpoint measured? 4) Is an appropriate comparison group? 5)Are potential sources of bias appropriately attended to? 6) Arc the- results clinically significant?.

KW - Clinical epidemiology

KW - Literature appraisal shills

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028029481&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028029481&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 2028

EP - 2031

JO - Spine

JF - Spine

SN - 0362-2436

IS - 18

ER -