Article Text

Download PDFPDF
General medicine
Teaching evidence-based medicine in Mexico: a systematic review of medical doctor curriculums at a national level
  1. David Rodriguez,
  2. Jhon Diego Martinez-Alvarado,
  3. Rebeca Garcia-Toto,
  4. Tania Itzel Genel-Rey
  1. Teaching Evidence-Based Medicine Mexico (TEBMx), Cuernavaca, Mexico
  1. Correspondence to Dr David Rodriguez, Teaching Evidence-Based Medicine Mexico, Cuernavaca, Mexico; david.rodriguez{at}


Objectives To assess the teaching of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in medical curriculums. As a secondary objective, we assessed the representativeness of science courses related to EBM.

Design and setting Systematic review. Accredited curriculums by the Mexican Council for the Accreditation of Medical Education.

Main outcome measures We provided a descriptive analysis of the required or elective EBM courses and EBM-related courses, academic credits and teaching period. EBM-related courses included research methodology, epidemiology, biostatistics, clinical research, public health, clinical epidemiology, scientific dissemination and health informatics to explore scientific education and training offered by medical schools. Additionally, we examined the curriculum’s structure, location, type of institution, total programme duration and academic credits. Data collection occurred from December 2020 to February 2021.

Results We identified 171 registered curriculums, of which we assessed 60 unique programmes (50% public) in our analysis. We identified 16 EBM single courses on the fifth and sixth semesters, of which 12 (20%) were mandatory and 4 were electives (6.7%). The allocated academic credits for EBM courses are minimal, without difference between public or private institutions, representing 0.08% of the total curriculum. Public health, epidemiology, research methodology and biostatistics courses are offered with greater frequency (55% or less) and curricular value (0.6% or less). In some cases, they are taught as combined courses. Clinical research, health informatics and clinical epidemiology are taught less than EBM, while scientific dissemination is nil.

Conclusion In Mexico, EBM teaching is limited to only one of five curriculums with minimal curricular value. A comprehensive curricular review is necessary across programmes to incorporate EBM as a first step to improve medical education and, consequently, public health. We call to action through an online, collaborative platform with several applications to optimise teaching of EBM.

Review protocol registration The systematic review protocol is excluded from the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews since this platform only accepts systematic reviews with health-related outcomes. Review protocol registration:

  • evidence-based practice

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

View Full Text


  • Twitter @ddrodd_md

  • Contributors DR conceived the general thesis of this article and is the guarantor of the project. All the authors were responsible for data collection, verification, writing the initial draft and final approval.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.