Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 1998 Apr 11;316(7138):1134-7.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7138.1134.

Randomised controlled trial of the READER method of critical appraisal in general practice

D MacAuley  1 , E McCrum, C Brown
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Randomised controlled trial of the READER method of critical appraisal in general practice

D MacAuley et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the READER model for critical reading by comparing it with a free appraisal, and to explore what factors influence different components of the model.

Design: A randomised controlled trial in which two groups of general practitioners assessed three papers from the general practice section of the BMJ.

Setting: Northern Ireland.

Subjects: 243 general practitioners.

Main outcome measures: Scores given using the READER model (Relevance, Education, Applicability, Discrimination, overall Evaluation) and scores given using a free appraisal for scientific quality and an overall total.

Results: The hierarchical order for the three papers was different for the two groups, according to the total scores. Participants using the READER method (intervention group) gave a significantly lower total score (P < or = 0.01) and a lower score for the scientific quality (P < or = 0.0001) for all three papers. Overall more than one in five (22%), and more men than women, read more than 5 articles a month (P < or = 0.05). Those who were trainers tended to read more articles (P < or = 0.05), and no trainers admitted to reading none. Overall, 58% (135/234) (68% (76/112) of the intervention group) believed that taking part in the exercise would encourage them to be more critical of published articles in the future (P < or = 0.01).

Conclusion: Participants using the READER model gave a consistently lower overall score and applied a more appropriate appraisal to the methodology of the studies. The method was both accurate and repeatable. No intrinsic factors influenced the scores, so the model is appropriate for use by all general practitioners regardless of their seniority, location, teaching or training experience, and the number of articles they read regularly.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure
Figure
Components and scoring system in READER method of critical appraisal
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Smith R. What clinical information do doctors need? BMJ. 1996;313:1062–1068. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wyatt J. Uses and sources of medical knowledge. Lancet. 1991;338:1368–1372. - PubMed
    1. Greenhalgh T. Is my practice evidence based? BMJ. 1996;313:957–958. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kitchens JM, Pfeifer MP. Teaching residents to read the medical literature: a controlled trial of a curriculum in critical appraisal/clinical epidemiology. J Gen Intern Med. 1989;4:384–387. - PubMed
    1. MacAuley D. READER: an acronym to aid critical reading by general practitioners. Br J Gen Pract. 1994;44:83–85. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types