ArticlePerspectives on medical education2015
Potential benefits of student- and junior doctor-led textbooks.
Article in Perspectives on medical education, 2015. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMedical textbooks are an important teaching supplement. Few have junior doctors or medical students ('juniors') as primary contributors. However, the strengths of junior-led face-to-face teaching are now well-established, and we hypothesized that similar advantages would be transferrable to a textbook setting.
methodsJuniors were approached to contribute to an independently published medical textbook, with senior clinicians recruited in parallel to ensure factual accuracy. Juniors directed every aspect of textbook writing and the production process. The published book stressed that it was an open collaboration with readers, inviting them to get in touch to evaluate the text and suggest ideas for new titles.
resultsOf 75 respondents, 93 % awarded the first textbook in the series 4 or 5 out of 5 for overall quality. Five other titles have been released, with seven more in development. Over 100 juniors are currently involved, with two students progressing from reviewers to editors after less than a year of mentorship.
conclusionJuniors can be a motivated, dynamic, innovative group, capable of significant contributions to the medical textbook literature. This initiative has generated a sustainable infrastructure to facilitate junior-led publishing, and has the capacity for expansion to accommodate new initiatives and ideas.
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.