Steve, Paul
A good diet is a mixed diet. I would not suggest that only badly flawed papers
be used for teaching.
I would suggest that teaching addresses attitudes as well as knowledge and
skill; and that an example of a misleading paper can be used to foster a
skeptical attitude --- after all, baloney detection is at the heart of EBP.
Efforts to foster a skeptical attitude should not be so enthusiastic that
skepticism becomes cynicysm or nihilism.
Both of the articles I suggested came from my world. If it is a "real world" I
sometimes wonder!!
Michael
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:56:57 +0100, Paul Glasziou
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Dear Steve,
>I'm sympathetic with the the idea that most articles we ask students to
>read should not be fatally flawed. We usually try to give students
>reasonably good studies for the first few particularly. There are
>usually enough flaws even in "good" trials to get students thinking. But
>a next step is to compare articles and ask which students would prefer
>to base their decision on. For example, we've used abstracts of cohort
>studies versus RCTs of folate for cardiovascular disease. But a good
>further step would be to compare two RCTs of the same question.
>Cheers
>Paul Glasziou
|