ArticleCroatian medical journal2006
Introductory course on getting to know journals and on "browsing" a research paper: first steps to proficiency in scientific communication.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of a course that promotes familiarity with biomedical periodicals and teaches efficient reading skills.
methodsA 16-hour course was designed to help inexperienced readers gain confidence navigating the contents of a research paper (instead of reading only abstracts), and make the first steps to critical appraisal. The course consisted of short lessons and small group work in which research papers were read and presented to the class. Participants learned a method called "browsing" that guides the first, superficial reading of a research paper and substitutes abstract reading. The course was administered to 15 hospital physicians and 40 graduate students of molecular medicine, in 4 separate sessions.
resultsAt course entry, 45 of 55 participants normally read the abstract before consulting the body of a research paper. An end-of-course questionnaire, completed by 47 participants, revealed that only 3 would still read the abstract first, while 33 would perform browsing, 7 would scan figures and tables, and 4 would consult another section of a paper outside of their research interests; similar responses were given for a research paper within their fields. For 43 participants, the course was effective in developing reading skills. On a final comprehension test, participants had a median score of 69% correct responses (interquartile range, 56%-80%).
conclusionThis introductory course on reading scientific articles is effective in overcoming abstract-only reading and in developing confidence with the research literature. Considering participants' subjective evaluation and test scores, the course contents are appropriate for both physicians and young researchers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17042069PMC2080472What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.