Foundations of Evidence-Based Practice: From Sicily Statement to the CREATE Framework
Leadership Studies
Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) is founded on a simple yet demanding premise: decisions should be grounded in the best available research evidence, informed by professional expertise, and shaped by contextual factors such as organisational priorities or patient values. In healthcare and other leadership contexts, this balance is not achieved by chance but through deliberate methodology and accountability to evidence. Within this broad discipline, EBP serves as an umbrella term encompassing the principles and competencies of Evidence-Based Health Care (EBHC) and Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM). EBHC operates at the macro level, informing policy, system design, and population health strategies, while EBM focuses on micro-level clinical decision-making for individual patients. EBP bridges these domains, integrating research evidence, professional judgment, and stakeholder perspectives to improve decision quality and outcomes.
The conceptual foundations of EBP have been shaped by seminal frameworks such as the Sicily Statements (2005, 2011), which set out a five-step process—ask, acquire, appraise, apply, and assess—and emphasise the need for standardised assessment tools. This led to the development of the CREATE (Classification Rubric for Evidence-Based Practice Assessment Tools in Education) framework, providing a structured approach for evaluating EBP competence. Complementary competency sets, such as those proposed by Melnyk et al. (2014) and Albarqouni et al. (2018), extend these foundations by identifying essential skills and attitudes for embedding EBP in both practice and education. These include leadership, interdisciplinary collaboration, shared decision-making, and a commitment to continuous improvement.
Importantly, the relevance of EBP extends beyond clinical roles to non-clinical executives who influence healthcare outcomes through policy, resource allocation, and organisational strategy. Embedding EBP principles across all levels of healthcare leadership requires curricula and training programmes that integrate the five-step model, adopt validated assessment tools, and address not only knowledge acquisition but also behavioural and cultural change. By aligning evidence, expertise, and context, EBP provides a robust framework for informed, effective, and accountable decision-making.
Conceptual Foundations
Table 1 compares the scope, unit of analysis, primary users, typical decisions, and exemplar tools/models for Evidence-Based Health Care (EBHC), Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), and Evidence-Based Practice (EBP).
| Feature | Evidence-Based Health Care (EBHC) | Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) | Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope | Macro-level: health systems, policies, population health | Micro-level: individual patient care | Cross-cutting: applies in clinical, policy, and interdisciplinary contexts |
| Unit of Analysis | Populations, health systems | Individual patients | Individuals, groups, and systems |
| Primary Users | Policy-makers, health administrators, public health professionals | Clinicians, medical specialists | Clinicians, allied health professionals, administrators, educators |
| Typical Decisions | Health policy design, system resource allocation, public health interventions | Diagnosis, treatment, prevention for specific patients | Integrating research evidence with expertise and values in varied contexts |
| Exemplar Tools/Models | Health impact assessment, guideline development frameworks | Clinical guidelines, decision aids, evidence summaries | Five-step EBP model, GRADE, interprofessional consensus processes |
Note. EBHC = Evidence-Based Health Care; EBM = Evidence-Based Medicine; EBP = Evidence-Based Practice. Adapted from standard definitions and frameworks in the evidence-based practice literature.
Evidence-Based Health Care has the broadest scope, addressing macro-level considerations such as health systems, population-level interventions, and organisational policymaking (Gray, 1997; Brownson et al., 2009). Evidence-Based Practice is more flexible and interdisciplinary, spanning disciplines and professions, such as nursing, therapy, and allied health (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2011; Hoffmann, Bennett, & Del Mar, 2023). It bridges macro-level and micro-level applications. Evidence-Based Medicine focuses more narrowly on clinical decision-making for individual patients, operating at the micro-level within healthcare (Straus et al., 2018).
Evidence-Based Health Care focuses on developing health policies, designing healthcare systems, and managing strategies to improve the health of populations (Brownson et al., 2009). Evidence-Based Medicine is utilised by clinicians to diagnose, treat, and prevent diseases in their daily practice with individual patients (Straus et al., 2018). Evidence-Based Practice is applied in interdisciplinary settings, where evidence informs the daily activities of various healthcare professionals (Hoffmann, Bennett, & Del Mar, 2023).
All three frameworks integrate the best research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values. Evidence-Based Health Care adopts a comprehensive viewpoint that engages with, reviews, and reflects on population needs and system-wide policies. Evidence-Based Practice emphasises both individual and collective outcomes, fostering collaboration across disciplines beyond medicine (D'Amour et al., 2005). Sackett et al. (1996) define Evidence-Based Medicine as “the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.” The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2025) describes Evidence-Based Practice as “a thoughtful integration of the best available scientific knowledge with clinical expertise.”
The National Institute of Corrections defines Evidence-Based Practice as “focus[ing] on approaches demonstrated to be effective through empirical research rather than through anecdote or professional experience alone” (National Institute of Corrections, 2025). This definition highlights a critical limitation for non-clinical executives, who may often rely on anecdotal or professional experience without the theoretical and practical training in Evidence-Based Practice competencies provided in an academic setting. While most of those who engage with these principles and competencies are trained clinicians, non-clinical professionals can also develop expertise and effectively apply these competencies in their roles not as clinicians but as evidence-based, informed global healthcare executives (Maltbia & Power, 2008).
Regardless of whether they are exceptional leaders, non-clinical executives without evidence-based training may rely on anecdotal observations or intuition rather than empirical evidence (D'Aquila, Fine, & Kovner, 2009). Even with clinicians on their team, these leaders face a significant blind spot and deficiency in their executive decision-making without evidence-based knowledge (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006). A nuanced understanding of evidence-based practices, whether related to resource allocation, policy implementation, or organisational strategy, is essential in high-stakes scenarios (Guerrero & Kim, 2013).
The Sicily Statement on Evidence-Based Practice
The Sicily Statement on Evidence-Based Practice (Dawes et al., 2005), developed during the Third International Conference of Evidence-Based Health Care Teachers and Developers in Taormina, Sicily, 2003, is a seminal document that has significantly influenced the global integration of EBP into healthcare education and practice. The Statement, drafted in a collaborative environment that brought together experts from across the globe, continues to shape the education and competencies of healthcare practitioners. The Sicily Statement has had a lasting impact on healthcare systems worldwide by promoting evidence-informed decision-making and improved health outcomes (Dawes et al., 2005). Dawes et al. (2005) reason that “definitions are in themselves insufficient to explain the underlying processes of EBP and to differentiate between an evidence-based process and evidence-based outcome.” Further, “All health care professionals need to understand the principles of EBP, recognise EBP in action, implement evidence-based policies, and have a critical attitude to their own practice and to evidence.”
The acknowledged gap between “best evidence and practice [is] one of the driving forces behind the development of EBP” (Dawes et al., 2005). As a result of the gap, healthcare outcomes often fall short of expectations. The importance of robust training and a commitment within the organisation to evidence-based approaches is thus emphasised.
To tackle these challenges, the Sicily Statement proposed expanding “the concept of evidence-based medicine,” a term “introduced in the medical literature in 1991,” into the broader term, evidence-based practice (Dawes et al., 2005). By doing so, the statement reflects “the benefits of entire health care teams and organisations adopting a shared evidence-based approach” (Dawes et al., 2005). As explained, “Evidence-based practitioners may share more attitudes in common with other evidence-based practitioners than with non-evidence-based colleagues from their own profession” (Dawes et al., 2005). This shift highlights the interdisciplinary nature of Evidence-Based Practice and its potential to unify healthcare teams under a common paradigm of best practice (Dawes et al., 2005).Five-Step EBP Model
The Sicily Statement emphasises the five-step model of Evidence-Based Practice:
- (a) Translating uncertainty into an answerable question (Richardson, Wilson, Nishikawa, & Hayward, 1995, as cited in Dawes et al., 2005)
- (b) Systematically retrieving the best available evidence (Rosenberg et al., 1998, as cited in Dawes et al., 2005)
- (c) Critically appraising evidence for validity, clinical relevance, and applicability (Parkes, Hyde, Deeks, & Milne, 2001, as cited in Dawes et al., 2005)
- (d) Applying results in practice (Epling, Smucny, Patil, & Tudiver, 2002, as cited in Dawes et al., 2005)
- (e) Evaluating performance (Jamtvedt, Young, Kristoffersen, O'Brien, & Oxman, 2006, as cited in Dawes et al., 2005)
The Sicily Statement’s five-step model is summarised in Table 2, outlining each stage of the process along with its primary purpose.
| Step | Description |
|---|---|
| Ask | Formulate an answerable question from a clinical uncertainty or decision point. |
| Acquire | Search systematically for the best available evidence from reliable sources. |
| Appraise | Critically evaluate the evidence for validity, relevance, and applicability. |
| Apply | Integrate the evidence with professional expertise and stakeholder values in practice. |
| Assess | Evaluate the outcomes of the decision and reflect on the process for future improvement. |
Note. Adapted from the Sicily Statement on Evidence-Based Practice (2005).
These steps are the cornerstone of Evidence-Based Practice education and are described as essential competencies for all healthcare practitioners. Notably, the statement advocates for the development, validation, and international accessibility of curricula and core assessment tools based on this model (Dawes et al., 2005).
The document further emphasises that all healthcare practitioners should understand the principles of Evidence-Based Practice and demonstrate a critical attitude towards their practice (Dawes et al., 2005). The authors reference Hurd’s (1998, as cited in Dawes et al., 2005) list of desired educational outcomes of a “scientifically literate” person as one who can (a) “distinguish evidence from propaganda (advertisement),” (b) “probability from certainty,” (c) “data from assertions,” (d) “rational belief from superstitions,” and (e) “science from folklore” (Dawes et al., 2005).
In this context, scientific literacy refers to the fundamentals of evidence-based practice and is essential for fostering a professional ethos grounded in critical thinking and evidence-based decision-making. Moreover, the Sicily Statement highlights the importance of preparing healthcare graduates to “gain, assess, apply and integrate new knowledge” while adapting to ever-changing professional environments (Dawes et al., 2005).
However, the statement acknowledges the difficulty of achieving these goals, as “EBP is rarely taught well and is applied (and observed) irregularly at the point of patient contact” (Dawes et al., 2005). Addressing this challenge requires a unified commitment to embedding Evidence-Based Practice principles into professional training and organisational policies.
The Sicily Statement concludes with a call to action, proposing that Evidence-Based Practice be recognised as a discipline encompassing all aspects of healthcare. This includes developing evidence-based policies, fostering a culture of continuous improvement, and ensuring that care decisions are “based on the best available, current, valid, and relevant evidence” while taking into account the “tacit and explicit knowledge of those providing care, within the context of available resources” (Dawes et al., 2005).
The CREATE Framework: Advancing Evidence-Based Practice Assessment
The 2011 Sicily Statement on Classification and Development of Evidence-Based Practice Learning Assessment Tools builds on the foundational principles established in the original 2005 statement. It addresses critical gaps in assessing Evidence-Based Practice competencies by providing practical guidance for developing and classifying Evidence-Based Practice learning assessment tools (Tilson et al., 2011). Developed through international consensus at the Fifth International Conference of Evidence-Based Health Care Teachers and Developers, this statement introduces the Classification Rubric for Evidence-Based Practice Assessment Tools in Education (CREATE) framework, a tool to standardise assessment and enhance its applicability across diverse educational settings (Tilson et al., 2011).
The statement underscores the challenges in evaluating Evidence-Based Practice learning, noting that “determining the best methods for evaluating EBP learning is hampered by a dearth of valid and practical assessment tools and by the absence of guidelines for classifying the purpose of those that exist” (Tilson et al., 2011). This limitation has led to inconsistent evaluation of Evidence-Based Practice teaching outcomes and an urgent need for validated tools.
A key aspect of the statement is the CREATE framework, which helps classify assessment tools systematically according to their alignment with the five steps of Evidence-Based Practice: ask, acquire, appraise, apply, and assess. As Tilson et al. (2011) explain, “The CREATE framework provides a roadmap for educators and developers to classify and develop assessment tools, aligning them with specific educational goals and the needs of diverse learners.”
Table 3 aligns the five steps of Evidence-Based Practice with key assessment purposes from the CREATE framework and examples of tools used in each domain.
| EBP Step | Assessment Purpose | Example Tools |
|---|---|---|
| Ask | Assess ability to formulate answerable, focused clinical questions. | Berlin Questionnaire (selected items), locally developed PICOT exercises. |
| Acquire | Evaluate skill in efficiently searching for best available evidence. | Search strategy scoring rubrics, observed search exercises. |
| Appraise | Determine ability to critically evaluate evidence for validity and applicability. | Fresno Test, structured critical appraisal checklists. |
| Apply | Measure integration of evidence into decision-making and practice. | Case-based simulations, Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs). |
| Assess | Evaluate outcomes of evidence-based interventions and personal performance. | Practice audits, patient outcome tracking systems. |
Note. Adapted from Tilson et al. (2011) CREATE framework.
The 2011 statement emphasises that assessment tools must reflect the curriculum’s goals and the learners’ needs (Tilson et al., 2011). It highlights that “tools for assessing the effectiveness of teaching Evidence-Based Practice need to reflect the aims of the curriculum. Learning aims will ideally be matched to the needs and characteristics of the learner audience.”
The statement identifies the lack of tools that measure all dimensions of Evidence-Based Practice, particularly behaviour and its impact on patient outcomes. While tools such as the Berlin Questionnaire and Fresno Test assess knowledge and skills, they do not adequately address behavioural competencies or real-world application. As Tilson et al. (2011) note, “The ultimate goal of EBP is to improve care outcomes for patients within the context of complex healthcare systems.”
The statement proposes a structured approach for developing Evidence-Based Practice assessment tools, recommending that developers “use the CREATE framework to classify new tools with regard to EBP steps assessed, assessment category (or categories) addressed, and the audience characteristics and assessment aim for which the tool is intended and/or validated” (Tilson et al., 2011).
The 2011 statement builds on the original Sicily Statement by addressing the practical challenges of assessing Evidence-Based Practice education. It responds to the earlier statement’s assertion that “no single assessment method can provide all the data required for judgment of anything so complex as the delivery of professional services” (Tilson et al., 2011). The CREATE framework provides a systematic method for aligning assessment tools with educational goals. Yet, gaps remain despite these advancements. Most existing tools emphasise knowledge and attitudes but leave significant gaps in assessing skills, behaviour, and patient outcomes. The recommendation to explore new tools and methodologies ensures that the Sicily Statements remain dynamic, evolving to meet the needs of healthcare educators and practitioners worldwide.
Competency Frameworks Across Health Professions
The integration of evidence-based practice (EBP) competencies into healthcare education and clinical practice has been shown to improve healthcare quality, reliability, and patient outcomes while simultaneously reducing variations in care and costs (Melnyk et al., 2014). Despite these advantages, EBP has yet to become a consistent standard in clinical settings. Melnyk et al. (2014) identified key barriers to EBP adoption, including inadequate knowledge and skills among clinicians, organisational cultures resistant to change, and a lack of EBP mentors.
Through a national consensus and Delphi process, Melnyk et al. (2014) developed a set of 13 essential competencies for registered nurses and 11 additional competencies for advanced practice nurses (APNs), which serve as a foundation for advancing EBP in clinical settings. These competencies include critical activities such as “participating in the formulation of clinical questions using PICOT format,” “integrating evidence gathered from external and internal sources to plan evidence-based practice changes,” and “evaluating outcomes of evidence-based decisions and practice changes for individuals, groups, and populations” (Melnyk et al., 2014, p. 10).
The competencies also address the importance of leadership in EBP. For APNs, competencies include “leading transdisciplinary teams in applying synthesized evidence to initiate clinical decisions and practice changes” and “mentoring others in evidence-based decision making and the EBP process” (Melnyk et al., 2014, p. 11).
Table 4 compares key EBP competencies across frameworks—Melnyk et al. (2014) for registered nurses (RNs) and advanced practice nurses (APNs), and Albarqouni et al. (2018) for interprofessional practice.
| Competency Category | Melnyk et al. (2014) — RNs | Melnyk et al. (2014) — APNs | Albarqouni et al. (2018) — Interprofessional |
|---|---|---|---|
| Question formulation | Formulate clinical questions using PICOT. | Mentor others in PICOT formulation. | Formulate answerable questions from practice needs. |
| Evidence acquisition | Search for and retrieve best available evidence. | Lead teams in comprehensive evidence searching. | Conduct systematic, comprehensive literature searches. |
| Critical appraisal | Appraise evidence for validity and relevance. | Mentor and lead in appraisal activities. | Critically appraise research for quality and applicability. |
| Integration into practice | Integrate internal and external evidence. | Lead practice changes based on synthesised evidence. | Apply evidence with patient values and context. |
| Outcome evaluation | Evaluate outcomes of EBP decisions. | Lead outcome evaluation processes. | Assess impact of decisions on outcomes. |
| Leadership | — | Lead transdisciplinary EBP teams. | Promote and advocate for EBP in teams. |
| Education & mentorship | — | Mentor and educate others in EBP. | Facilitate EBP learning among colleagues. |
Note. PICOT = Patient/Problem, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Time. Adapted from Melnyk et al. (2014) and Albarqouni et al. (2018).
Melnyk et al. (2014) emphasised that consistent implementation of these competencies requires both organisational and individual strategies. Organisationally, healthcare systems should provide EBP mentors, access to library services, and adequate resources to facilitate evidence-based care. Individually, nurses and APNs must engage in continuous skill-building and serve as role models for evidence-based decision-making. The study also calls for the development of valid and reliable tools to assess these competencies and evaluate their impact on clinician performance and patient outcomes. Melnyk et al. (2014) noted that while tools like the Fresno Test exist for medicine, similar validated tools for nursing and allied health professionals are lacking.
Evidence-based practice (EBP) plays a pivotal role in enhancing healthcare quality and patient outcomes by integrating research evidence with clinical expertise and patient preferences (Albarqouni et al., 2018). A recent consensus statement outlines a systematic effort to establish core competencies for EBP to address inconsistencies in its teaching and improve curricula across educational settings. A notable barrier is “a lack of EBP knowledge and skills,” compounded by the “inconsistency in the quality and content of the EBP teaching programs” (Albarqouni et al., 2018, p. e180281). The competencies emphasise practical application, including critical appraisal of evidence, shared decision-making, and strategies to overcome barriers in knowledge translation (Albarqouni et al., 2018). This scoping review by Larsen, Terkelsen, Carlsen, and Kristensen (2019) offers an expansive analysis of methods for teaching evidence-based practice (EBP) across professional bachelor’s degree healthcare programmes.
Table 5 presents key updates related to the current status of evidence-based practice (EBP), focusing on its integration, challenges, and opportunities for growth.
| Key Update | Details |
|---|---|
| Integration into Clinical Practice | Incorporating evidence-based practice (EBP) skills into clinical practice is crucial. |
| Interdisciplinary Focus | A unified approach across health professions is essential for effective EBP implementation. |
| Educational Gaps | There is a persistent underemphasis on the evaluation step of EBP in educational programs. |
| Innovative Methods | Journal clubs and embedded librarians are underused tools in promoting EBP in practice. |
| The Sicily Statement | The Sicily Statement remains a critical framework for advancing EBP education, particularly its emphasis on a structured five-step model. |
| Non-clinical Leaders | Non-clinical leaders such as healthcare administrators, policy advisors, and data analysts have access to training resources that enable them to interpret and apply research findings in resource allocation, program development, and strategic planning. |
Note. Summary of key updates from the review of evidence-based practice (EBP) trends and challenges.
Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) continues to evolve as an essential framework that bridges the gap between research, professional expertise, and contextual factors. By promoting a systematic approach to decision-making, EBP ensures improved outcomes in healthcare and other leadership contexts, highlighting the importance of both clinical and non-clinical leadership in its successful implementation.
References
Albarqouni, L., Hoffmann, T., Straus, S., Olsen, N. R., Young, T., Ilic, D., Shaneyfelt, T., Haynes, R. B., & Glasziou, P. (2018). Core competencies in evidence-based practice for health professionals: Consensus statement based on a systematic review and Delphi survey. JAMA Network Open, 1(2), e180281. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0281
Brownson, R. C., Baker, E. A., Leet, T. L., & Gillespie, K. N. (2009). Evidence-based public health (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Cook, D. J., Sackett, D. L., & Spitzer, W. O. (1992). Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48(1), 167–171.
D’Amour, D., Ferrada-Videla, M., Rodriguez, L. S. M., & Beaulieu, M. D. (2005). The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: Core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19(Suppl. 1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820500082529
D’Aquila, J. M., Fine, C. H., & Kovner, A. R. (2009). Evidence-based management: Practical implications for implementation. Health Care Management Review, 34(3), 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0b013e31819c8bdf
Dawes, M., Summerskill, W., Glasziou, P., Cartabellotta, A., Martin, J., Hopayian, K., Porzsolt, F., Burls, A., & Osborne, J. (2005). Sicily statement on evidence-based practice. BMC Medical Education, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-5-1
Eddy, D. M. (2005). Evidence-based medicine: A unified approach. Health Affairs, 24(1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.24.1.9
Epling, J., Smucny, J., Patil, A., & Tudiver, F. (2002). Teaching the evidence-based practice: A randomized trial in a community-based medical school. Family Medicine, 34(7), 495–500.
Gray, J. A. M. (1997). Evidence-based healthcare: How to make health policy and management decisions. Churchill Livingstone.
Guerrero, E. G., & Kim, A. (2013). Organizational structure, leadership and readiness for change: Implications for implementation of evidence-based practices. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 46(2), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2013.06.006
Hoffmann, T., Bennett, S., & Del Mar, C. (2023). Evidence-based practice across the health professions (5th ed.). Elsevier.
Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82(3), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199806)82:3<407::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-G
Jamtvedt, G., Young, J. M., Kristoffersen, D. T., O'Brien, M. A., & Oxman, A. D. (2006). Audit and feedback: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2, CD000259. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub2
Larsen, C. M., Terkelsen, A. S., Carlsen, A. M. F., & Kristensen, H. K. (2019). Methods for teaching evidence-based practice: A scoping review. BMC Medical Education, 19, 259. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1681-0
Maltbia, T. E., & Power, A. (2008). Evidence-based executive coaching: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 6(2), 1–38.
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2011). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice(2nd ed.). Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Melnyk, B. M., Gallagher-Ford, L., Long, L. E., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2014). The establishment of evidence-based practice competencies for practicing registered nurses and advanced practice nurses in real-world clinical settings: Proficiencies to improve healthcare quality, reliability, patient outcomes, and costs. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 11(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12021
National Institute of Corrections. (2025). Evidence-based practice. https://nicic.gov/evidence-based-practices
Ozaki, A., Leppold, C., Sawano, T., Tsubokura, M., Tsukada, M., Tsukada, Y., & Nomura, S. (2019). How do we learn evidence-based medicine? A case-based review. International Journal of General Medicine, 12, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S186662
Parkes, J., Hyde, C., Deeks, J., & Milne, R. (2001). Teaching critical appraisal skills in health care settings. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 3, CD001270. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001270
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense: Profiting from evidence-based management. Harvard Business Review Press.
Richardson, W. S., Wilson, M. C., Nishikawa, J., & Hayward, R. S. (1995). The well-built clinical question: A key to evidence-based decisions. ACP Journal Club, 123(3), A12–A13.
Rosenberg, W., Donald, A., & Geddes, J. (1998). Evidence-based medicine: An approach to clinical problem-solving. BMJ, 316(7137), 110–115. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7137.110
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. BMJ, 312(7023), 71–72. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71
Straus, S. E., Glasziou, P., Richardson, W. S., & Haynes, R. B. (2018). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM (5th ed.). Elsevier.
Tilson, J. K., Kaplan, S. L., Harris, J. L., Hutchinson, A., Ilic, D., Niederman, R., Potomkova, J., Zwolsman, S. E., & Sicily Statement Authors. (2011). Sicily statement on classification and development of evidence-based practice learning assessment tools. BMC Medical Education, 11(78), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-11-78