{"id":1428,"date":"2018-12-28T20:05:04","date_gmt":"2018-12-28T19:05:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/?p=1428"},"modified":"2018-12-27T17:15:14","modified_gmt":"2018-12-27T16:15:14","slug":"refreshing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/2018\/12\/28\/refreshing\/","title":{"rendered":"Refreshing"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"Every now and then you’ll hit an EBM question, clinical dilemma or situation where you’ve got it at the back of your mind, or the tip of your tongue, you’ve seen something similar before. It may be a network meta-analysis, where people seem to have combined studies in a spidergram not a forest plot. A study which claims to be case-control, but beginning from the premise of treated vs. untreated. Or a prediction model which appears just too good to be true…<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In all these situations we’d suggest you turn to the Archives of Diseases in Childhood Blog for help. The blog has been collecting little pieces to guide the critical appraiser and user of evidence-in-practice for quite a few years now. It’s open access, searchable, readable on almost any device, and – we were told once – refreshing to read and ‘get’ the dilemmas under explanation. There are a few short series of pieces, trying to demystify stats, explore qualitative research and how to get your writing snappy and meaningful. There are explanations of the basics of EBM; asking questions, acquiring information, appraising all sorts of studies, and applying their results. If you don’t find what you’re looking for we’d encourage you to drop a tweet to @ADC_BMJ, a comment on our Facebook page or even an old-fashioned email to the Journal.<\/p>\n

Take this opportunity to have a look. You too may find it refreshing.<\/p>\n