Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26941431›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of pharmaceutical education2016

Medical Literature Evaluation Education at US Schools of Pharmacy.

Teresa A O'Sullivan, Jennifer Phillips, Kendra Demaris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of pharmaceutical education, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Teaching Student Pharmacists to Apply Drug Literature to Patient Cases.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2017
    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

3 authors.

Teresa A O'SullivanUniversity of Washington School of Pharmacy, Seattle, Washington.
Jennifer PhillipsMidwestern University Chicago College of Pharmacy, Chicago, Illinois.
Kendra DemarisHilo Medical Center and Hilo College of Pharmacy, University of Hawaii, Hilo, Hawaii.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine how medical literature evaluation (MLE) is being taught across the United States and to summarize methods for teaching and assessing MLE.

methodsAn 18-question survey was administered to faculty members whose primary responsibility was teaching MLE at schools and colleges of pharmacy.

resultsResponses were received from 90 (71%) US schools of pharmacy. The most common method of integrating MLE into the curriculum was as a stand-alone course (49%). The most common placement was during the second professional year (43%) or integrated throughout the curriculum (25%). The majority (77%) of schools used a team-based approach. The use of active-learning strategies was common as was the use of multiple methods of evaluation. Responses varied regarding what role the course director played in incorporating MLE into advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs).

conclusionThere is a trend toward incorporating MLE education components throughout the pre-APPE curriculum and placement of literature review/evaluation exercises into therapeutics practice skills laboratories to help students see how this skill integrates into other patient care skills. Several pre-APPE educational standards for MLE education exist, including journal club activities, a team-based approach to teaching and evaluation, and use of active-learning techniques.

Indexed as

CurriculumEducation, MedicalEducation, PharmacyManuscripts, Medical as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesFacultyHumansPatient CarePharmacyProblem-Based LearningSchools, PharmacyStudents, PharmacySurveys and QuestionnairesTeachingUnited Statesdrug informationmedical literature evaluationqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID26941431
PMCPMC4776298

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.