Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17081286›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2006

Knowledge and attitudes about health research amongst a group of Pakistani medical students.

Hassan Khan, Muhammad RizwanulHaq Khawaja, Abdul Waheed, Muhammad Ameen Rauf, Zafar Fatmi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Hassan KhanMedical College, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan. drhasankhan@gmail.com
Muhammad RizwanulHaq Khawaja
Abdul Waheed
Muhammad Ameen Rauf
Zafar Fatmi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth research training is an important part of medical education. This study was conducted to assess the level of knowledge and attitudes regarding health research in a group of Pakistani medical students at Aga Khan University, Karachi.

methodsIt was a cross-sectional pilot study conducted among a group of Pakistani medical students. Through stratified random sampling, a pre-tested, structured and validated questionnaire was administered to 220 medical students. Knowledge and attitudes were recorded on a scale (graduated in percentages).

resultsMean scores of students were 49.0% on knowledge scale and 53.7% on attitude scale. Both knowledge and attitudes improved significantly with increasing years of study in medical college [Regression coefficient 4.10 (p-value; 0.019) and 6.67 (p-value; < 0.001) for knowledge and attitudes, respectively].

conclusionMedical students demonstrate moderate level of knowledge and attitude towards health research. Intensive training in this regard is associated with significant improvement in knowledge and attitudes of students towards health research.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelBiomedical ResearchHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth Services ResearchAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEducational StatusEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFemaleHumansMalePakistanProblem-Based LearningSchools, MedicalStudents, MedicalSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID17081286
PMCPMC1635552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.