ArticleThe Journal of chiropractic education2013
Outcomes of a mentored research competition for authoring pediatric case reports in chiropractic.
Article in The Journal of chiropractic education, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Researcher and Author Impact Metrics: Variety, Value, and Context.Journal of Korean medical science · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveA chiropractic pediatric specialist often encounters novel clinical findings not reported currently in the literature. This project matched board certified chiropractic pediatric specialists with a mentor experienced in scientific writing to co-author a research paper to add to the literature base available on chiropractic pediatric practice.
methodsClinicians who had received their Diplomate in Clinical Chiropractic Pediatrics and mentors in scientific writing were teamed up. Two surveys were conducted to collect quantitative data, and focus groups were held to gather qualitative data about the overall experience of the mentor and mentee (clinicians) participating in the study. The first survey was sent to the clinicians to gather information about their research idea and their experience in research. The second survey was conducted upon project completion by clinicians and mentors. A project wiki was used as a communication strategy.
resultsTen reports were submitted by authorship teams. Time spent on this project was an average of 58 hours by clinicians and 36 hours by the mentors. Mentors aided by adding content material, editing manuscripts, and educating the clinicians in the art of writing a paper. Improvements for this project included clearer mentoring guidelines and not using the wiki as a communication venue.
conclusionThe project ultimately fulfilled the goal of using a mentorship model to facilitate scientific writing education and ease the anxiety of authoring a first publication. The overall experience was "good"; however, there are opportunities for improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.