Skip to main content
MedVellum
QuestionsVideosPricing

MedVellum

Fellowship exam preparation across every specialty: source-verified topics, questions in every format, and videos.

Product

  • Specialties
  • Questions
  • Videos
  • Exam tools
  • Pricing

Verification & policy

  • Verified register
  • Editorial policy
  • Privacy
  • Terms

Account

  • Sign in
  • Create account
  • Dashboard
  • Account & billing

© 2026 MedVellum. For education only — not a substitute for clinical judgement.

llms.txtPsychiatry LLM catalogSitemap

O&G TopicsProfessional practice

O&G · Professional practice

Evidence-based medicine and statistics for O&G

Also known as EBM · Evidence-based practice · Critical appraisal · PICO · GRADE · PRISMA · Users' Guides · Statistics for O&G

FRANZCOG fellowship reference on evidence-based medicine and statistics applied to O&G: PICO question formulation, the hierarchy of study designs, common effect measures (RR, OR, ARR, NNT, NNH, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, likelihood ratios), critical-appraisal tools (CASP, JAMA Users' Guides, RoB 2, ROBINS-I, QUADAS-2, PRISMA 2020, CONSORT 2010, AMSTAR 2, AGREE II), the GRADE framework, the systematic-review process and how to apply evidence to an O&G decision. ANZ-primary, globally tagged to MRCOG and ABOG.

high18 referencesUpdated 29 July 202613 min readVerification in progress

Practise this topic

  • 8 MCQs

Your progress

Saved on this device.

Practise this topic8 MCQs with explanations

Target exams

FRANZCOGMRCOGABOGFRCSCMRCPI

Red flags

  • Treating a confidence interval that crosses the null as a positive result
  • Quoting a relative risk reduction without the absolute baseline, ARR or NNT
  • Confusing sensitivity with positive predictive value in a low-prevalence population
  • Reading the results before assessing validity — a biased estimate is wrong at any magnitude
  • Trusting a narrative review or industry-funded summary over an independent systematic review
  • Applying a guideline rigidly without weighing the certainty of its evidence or the patient's values
On this page
Study tools

Your progress

Saved on this device.

Practise this topic8 MCQs with explanations

Target exams

FRANZCOGMRCOGABOGFRCSCMRCPI

Red flags

  • Treating a confidence interval that crosses the null as a positive result
  • Quoting a relative risk reduction without the absolute baseline, ARR or NNT
  • Confusing sensitivity with positive predictive value in a low-prevalence population
  • Reading the results before assessing validity — a biased estimate is wrong at any magnitude
  • Trusting a narrative review or industry-funded summary over an independent systematic review
  • Applying a guideline rigidly without weighing the certainty of its evidence or the patient's values
One-line fellowship answer

Evidence-based medicine is the integration of best current research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values — implemented as ask (PICO), acquire, appraise, apply, assess. For O&G this means framing the clinical question precisely, ranking study designs by validity, calculating RR/OR/ARR/NNT and sensitivity/specificity/PPV/NPV with confidence intervals, appraising with RoB 2, QUADAS-2, PRISMA 2020 and CASP, and rating certainty with GRADE before sharing the decision with the patient.[1][2][5]

The operational form is the five-step model, memorised in order — examiners will listen for the sequence:[1]

  1. Ask a focused clinical question (PICO).
  2. Acquire the best available evidence efficiently.
  3. Appraise the evidence for validity, results and applicability.
  4. Apply the evidence to the patient, integrating expertise and values.
  5. Assess the outcome and audit your decision. [1]
The five As
"Ask, Acquire, Appraise, Apply, Assess" — the consultant runs them in order, in parallel and in writing. If your journal-club answer has any of these out of sequence, the examiners hear it.[1]

Asking the clinical question — PICO

Before you search, you must know what you are asking. A vague question returns an unmanageable pile of papers and an unfocused answer. The well-built clinical question has four parts, in order, every time:[2]

  • Population — who is the patient? Be specific (for example "nulliparous women at 36 weeks with a breech presentation, no contraindication to ECV").
  • Intervention — what are you considering? (for example "external cephalic version at term").
  • Comparator — what is the alternative? (for example "expectant management, awaiting spontaneous version or vaginal breech birth").
  • Outcome — what matters to the patient? (for example "cephalic presentation at birth, successful vaginal birth, neonatal morbidity"). [2]

P

  • Population — nulliparous woman, 38 weeks, breech presentation, no prior uterine surgery, no contraindication to ECV

I

  • Intervention — external cephalic version at term under tocolysis

C

  • Comparator — expectant management, awaiting spontaneous version or planned vaginal breech birth

O

  • Outcome — cephalic presentation at birth; rates of caesarean, neonatal morbidity, maternal satisfaction
Foreground, not backgroundForeground questions ask about specific clinical decisions (PICO). Background questions ask about a condition (what is, how causes). PICO is for foreground only — background questions belong in a textbook, not a journal club.[2]

Two variants you may see: PICOS (S = study design — useful when you have a particular level in mind) and PICOT (T = time — useful for prognostic and follow-up questions). Don't argue the letters at the station — show you can frame the question, name the population precisely and decide what would change practice.[2]

Obstetrics & Gynaecology Pro

Continue reading

You have read the opening of this topic. The complete unit — every section and its primary-source references — is part of the Obstetrics & Gynaecology fellowship library.

Sign in to continueSee pricing
References18ShowHide
  1. [1]Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't BMJ, 1996.PMID 8555924
  2. [2]Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, et al. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions ACP J Club, 1995.PMID 7582737
  3. [3]Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials BMJ, 2010.PMID 21350618
  4. [4]Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews BMJ, 2021.PMID 33782057
  5. [5]Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence J Clin Epidemiol, 2011.PMID 21208779
  6. [6]Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations J Clin Epidemiol, 2013.PMID 23312392
  7. [7]Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ, 2019.PMID 31462531
  8. [8]Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies Ann Intern Med, 2011.PMID 22007046
  9. [9]Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ, et al. Users' guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? JAMA, 1994.PMID 8258890
  10. [10]Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test BMJ, 1997.PMID 9310563
  11. [11]Bland JM, Altman DG Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement Lancet, 1986.PMID 2868172
  12. [12]Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses BMJ, 2003.PMID 12958120
  13. [13]Andrews JC, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation - determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength J Clin Epidemiol, 2013.PMID 23570745
  14. [14]Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JP, et al. How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users' guides to the medical literature JAMA, 2014.PMID 25005654
  15. [15]Ioannidis JP Why most published research findings are false PLoS Med, 2005.PMID 16060722
  16. [16]Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2019.PMID 31643080
  17. [17]Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews Syst Rev, 2021.PMID 33499930
  18. [18]Tsakiridis I, Mamopoulos A, Athanasiadis A, Dagklis T Management of Breech Presentation at Term: A Comparison of Four National Evidence-Based Guidelines Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol, 2020.PMID 31167240

Test yourself

Practise what you just read

  • 8 MCQs
Obstetrics & Gynaecology Pro

$29/ monthor $279 / year

The complete Obstetrics & Gynaecology library, every exam format, one subscription.

  • Complete library for one chosen specialty
  • Timed MCQ mock exams and spaced review
  • Clinical cases & cross-table vivas
See pricingSign in
PreviousCultural safety in maternity and gynaecological careProfessional practiceNextHuman factors, teamwork and leadership on labour wardProfessional practice