Table 3

CAS training and control groups reported number of articles read, and number of hours spent reading.

CAS training Mean (SD)

Control Mean (SD)

Intention to treat Mean difference+ (95% CI)

Explanatory analysis Mean difference+ (95% CI)


No. articles looked at or read thoroughly each week for keeping up-to-date

5.7 (6.4)

5.1 (4.3)

0.9 (-0.6 to 1.2)

0.5 (-0.7 to 1.3)

No. hours spent reading professional literature each week for keeping up-to-date

2.2 (1.9)

2.5 (3.9)

0.9 (-0.6 to 1.2)

0.9 (-0.6 to 1.3)

No. articles looked at or read thoroughly each week to solve a health care problem

1.1 (0.8)

0.9 (0.8)

1.5 (-0.8 to 2.7)

1.4 (-0.8 to 2.7)

No. hours spent reading professional literature to solve a health care problem

0.9 (0.7)

0.9 (0.6)

-0.02 (-0.4 to 0.3)

-0.1 (-0.5 to 0.2)

Proportion of articles read thoroughly

21.9 (23.6)

19.2 (19.9)

1.3 (-0.8 to 2.0)

2.6 (-0.7 to 1.8)

Proportion of articles skim read

37.0 (20.8)

42.3 (24.9)

-5.7 (-15.4 to 4.1)

-8.2 (-18.1 to 1.6)

Proportion of articles for which only abstracts read

49.7 (23.4)

40.8 (26.7)

7.9 (-3.3 to 19.1)

12.0 (1.0 to 23.0)*


+ Adjusted for sex, age, attendance at previous educational activity, access to medical library, prior experience of searching literature, formal education in research methods and/or epidemiology and or statistics, prior involvement in research

* Statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05

Taylor et al. BMC Medical Education 2004 4:30   doi:10.1186/1472-6920-4-30

Open Data