Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30577779›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2018

Graduate medical education scholarly activities initiatives: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

William Wood, Jonathan McCollum, Promil Kukreja, Imelda L Vetter, Charity J Morgan, Ana Hossein Zadeh Maleki, Lee Ann Riesenberg

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The Research Lab: Mentoring and Stimulating Research Among Residents in a Community Training Hospital.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Moxidectin is a candidate for use as anFrontiers in veterinary science · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

William WoodAffiliated Anesthesiologists, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
Jonathan McCollumDepartment of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Promil KukrejaDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Imelda L VetterDell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Charity J MorganDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Ana Hossein Zadeh MalekiDepartment of Neurology, University of Tennessee, Memphis, TN, USA.
Lee Ann RiesenbergDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 619 South 19th Street, JT 909, Birmingham, AL, 35249-6180, USA. Lriesenberg@uabmc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccording to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education residents "should participate in scholarly activity." The development of a sustainable, successful resident scholarship program is a difficult task faced by graduate medical education leadership.

methodsA medical librarian conducted a systematic literature search for English language articles published on scholarly activities initiatives in Graduate Medical Education (GME) between January 2003 and March 31 2017. Inclusion criteria included implementing a graduate medical education research curriculum or initiative designed to enhance intern, resident, or fellow scholarly activities using a control or comparison group. We defined major outcomes as increases in publications or presentations. Random effects meta-analysis was used to compare the rate of publications before and after implementation of curriculum or initiative.

resultsWe identified 32 relevant articles. Twenty-nine (91%) reported on resident publications, with 35% (10/29) reporting statistically significant increases. Fifteen articles (47%) reported on regional, national, or international presentations, with only 13% (2/15) reporting a statistically significant increase in productivity. Nineteen studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis; for these studies, the post-initiative publication rate was estimated to be 2.6 times the pre-intervention rate (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.3; p < 0.001).

conclusionsOur systematic review identified 32 articles describing curricula and initiatives used by GME programs to increase scholarly activity. The three most frequently reported initiatives were mentors (88%), curriculum (59%), and protected time (59%). Although no specific strategy was identified as paramount to improved productivity, meta-analysis revealed that the publication rate was significantly higher following the implementation of an initiative. Thus, we conclude that a culture of emphasis on resident scholarship is the most important step. We call for well-designed research studies with control or comparison groups and a power analysis focused on identifying best practices for future scholarly activities curricula and initiatives.

Indexed as

BibliometricsBiomedical ResearchEducation, Medical, GraduateEfficiencyProgram EvaluationPublication BiasPublicationsCurriculumGraduate medical educationResearchScholarly activitiesScholarship

Identifiers

PMID30577779
PMCPMC6303993

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.