Author's response to reviews Title: Effective or just practical? An evaluation of an online postgraduate module on evidence-based medicine (EBM) Authors:

Background: “The aim of this study was to formatively evaluate this module; the broader purpose to assess the usefulness of having an online rather than a face-to-face module on EBM..” The objectives need to be more specific: were the authors trying to evaluate the module in terms of its effectiveness in delivery, userfriendliness or relevance to practice for example? the second half of the sentence implies a comparison between online and face to face module but there was no comparison group, as commented earlier. Reworded as: The aim of this study was to formatively evaluate this module; assessing both the mode of delivery; as well as the perceived effectiveness and usefulness thereof. Abstract: Methods, results “....A document review to compare the content of the module to EBM competencies” I feel that this should come under validation of the EBM module to determine the content validity (which should have been done during the development of the module), and not evaluation of the effectiveness of the module (which was We did not aim to validate the content, but only wanted to see how and whether it addressed all the relevant EBM content. The text was reworded: A document review to assess whether the content of the module reflects important EBM competencies Methods, results “....A document review to compare the content of the module to EBM competencies” I feel that this should come under validation of the EBM module to determine the content validity (which should have been done during the development of the module), and not evaluation of the effectiveness of the module (which was We did not aim to validate the content, but only wanted to see how and whether it addressed all the relevant EBM content. The text was reworded: A document review to assess whether the content of the module reflects important EBM competencies