Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26181541›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2015

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Medical Students' Perspectives on the Engagement in Research.

Cho Naing, Victor Nyunt Wai, Jo Durham, Maxine A Whittaker, Ni Ni Win, Kyan Aung, Joon Wah Mak

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

7 authors.

Cho NaingFrom the Institute for Research, Development and Innovation (IRDI) (CN, JWM), International Medical University (IMU), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; School of Medicine (VNW, KA), International Medical University (IMU), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; School of Public Health (JD, MAW), University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; and School of Health Sciences (NNW), International Medical University (IMU), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Victor Nyunt Wai
Jo Durham
Maxine A Whittaker
Ni Ni Win
Kyan Aung
Joon Wah Mak

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Engaging students in active learning lies at the center of effective higher education. In medical schools, students' engagement in learning and research has come under increasing attention. The objective of this study was to synthesize evidence on medical students' perspectives on the engagement in research. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Relevant studies were searched in electronic databases. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed. Overall, 14 observational studies (with 17 data sets) were included. In general, many studies did not use the same questionnaires and the outcome measurements were not consistently reported; these presented some difficulties in pooling the results. Whenever data permitted, we performed pooled analysis for the 4 education outcomes. A Bayesian meta-analytical approach was supplemented as a measure of uncertainty. A pooled analysis showed that 74% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.57%-11.07%; I2: 95.2%) of those students who engaged in research (while at the medical school) had positive attitudes toward their research experiences, whereas 49.5% (95% CI: 36.4%-62.7%; I2: 93.4%) had positive attitudes toward the study of medical sciences, 62.3% (95% CI: 46.7%-77.9%; I2: 96.3%) had self-reported changes in their practices, and 64% (95% CI: 30.8%-96.6%; I2: 98.5%) could have published their work. There was substantial heterogeneity among studies. We acknowledged the caveats and the merit of the current review. Findings showed that engagement in research resulted in favorable reactions toward research and academic learning. Future well-designed studies using standardized research tools on how to engage students in research are recommended.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchBayes TheoremHumansStudents, Medical

Identifiers

PMID26181541
PMCPMC4617066

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.