Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18922170›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2008

So much to teach, so little time: a prospective cohort study evaluating a tool to select content for a critical care curriculum.

Adam D Peets, Kevin McLaughlin, Jocelyn Lockyer, Tyrone Donnon

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Adam D PeetsDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, 29th St NW, Calgary T2N 2T9 Canada. adpeets@ucalgary.ca
Kevin McLaughlin
Jocelyn Lockyer
Tyrone Donnon

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCurricular content is often based on the personal opinions of a small number of individuals. Although convenient, such curricula may not meet the needs of the target learner, the program or the institution. Using an objective method to ensure content validity of a curriculum can alleviate this issue.

methodsA form was created that listed clinical presentations relevant to residents completing intensive care unit (ICU) rotations. Twenty residents and 20 intensivists in tertiary academic multisystem ICUs ranked each presentation on three separate scales: how life-threatening each is, how commonly each is seen in critical care, and how reversible each is. Mean scores for the individual scales were calculated, and these three values were subsequently multiplied together to achieve a composite score for each presentation. The correlation between the two groups' scores for the presentations was calculated to assess reliability of the process.

resultsThere was excellent agreement between the two groups for rating each presentation (correlation coefficient r = 0.94). The 10 clinical presentations with the highest composite scores formed the basis of our new curriculum.

conclusionsWe describe a method that can be used to select the content of a curriculum for learners in an ICU. Although the content that we selected to include in our curriculum may not be applicable to other ICUs, we believe that the process we used is easily applied elsewhere, and that it provides an efficient method to improve content validity of a curriculum.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesCritical CareCurriculumHumansInternship and ResidencyPhysiciansProspective StudiesTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID18922170
PMCPMC2592766

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.