Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18612715›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2008

Predictive validity evidence for medical education research study quality instrument scores: quality of submissions to JGIM's Medical Education Special Issue.

Darcy A Reed, Thomas J Beckman, Scott M Wright, Rachel B Levine, David E Kern, David A Cook

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 107 papers, 37 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
107citing papers in PubMed, 37 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

107 citing papers in PubMed, 37 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Procrastination in medical students: a systematic review.Canadian medical education journal · 2026
    Pooled it
  5. Hands-on Distance Simulation of Technical Skills: A Systematic Review.Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2026
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Training and assessment for colorectal surgery and appendicectomy- a systematic review.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. An education on pharmacologically active complementary and alternative medicine and its effects on cancer treatment: literature review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Pooled it
  19. Social Media in Health Studies: A Systematic Review of Comparative Learning Methods.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

47 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

6 authors.

Darcy A ReedDivision of Primary Care Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA. reed.darcy@mayo.edu
Thomas J Beckman
Scott M Wright
Rachel B Levine
David E Kern
David A Cook

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDeficiencies in medical education research quality are widely acknowledged. Content, internal structure, and criterion validity evidence support the use of the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) to measure education research quality, but predictive validity evidence has not been explored.

objectiveTo describe the quality of manuscripts submitted to the 2008 Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM) medical education issue and determine whether MERSQI scores predict editorial decisions. DESIGN AND

participantsCross-sectional study of original, quantitative research studies submitted for publication. MEASUREMENTS: Study quality measured by MERSQI scores (possible range 5-18).

resultsOf 131 submitted manuscripts, 100 met inclusion criteria. The mean (SD) total MERSQI score was 9.6 (2.6), range 5-15.5. Most studies used single-group cross-sectional (54%) or pre-post designs (32%), were conducted at one institution (78%), and reported satisfaction or opinion outcomes (56%). Few (36%) reported validity evidence for evaluation instruments. A one-point increase in MERSQI score was associated with editorial decisions to send manuscripts for peer review versus reject without review (OR 1.31, 95%CI 1.07-1.61, p = 0.009) and to invite revisions after review versus reject after review (OR 1.29, 95%CI 1.05-1.58, p = 0.02). MERSQI scores predicted final acceptance versus rejection (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.10-1.58, p = 0.003). The mean total MERSQI score of accepted manuscripts was significantly higher than rejected manuscripts (10.7 [2.5] versus 9.0 [2.4], p = 0.003).

conclusionsMERSQI scores predicted editorial decisions and identified areas of methodological strengths and weaknesses in submitted manuscripts. Researchers, reviewers, and editors might use this instrument as a measure of methodological quality.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalPublishingResearchResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID18612715
PMCPMC2517948

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.