Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30604355›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2020

Good Scientific Practice: Developing a Curriculum for Medical Students in Germany.

Katharina Fuerholzer, Maximilian Schochow, Florian Steger

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Katharina FuerholzerInstitute for the History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Ulm University, Parkstraße 11, 89073, Ulm, Germany. katharina.fuerholzer@uni-ulm.de.ORCID 0000-0002-6586-5377
Maximilian SchochowInstitute for the History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Ulm University, Parkstraße 11, 89073, Ulm, Germany.
Florian StegerInstitute for the History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Ulm University, Parkstraße 11, 89073, Ulm, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

German medical schools have not yet sufficiently introduced students to the field of good scientific practice (GSP). In order to prevent scientific misconduct and to foster scientific integrity, courses on GSP must be an integral part of the curriculum of medical students. Based on a review of the literature, teaching units and materials for two courses on GSP were developed and tested in a pilot course. The pilot course was accompanied by a pre-post evaluation that assessed students' knowledge and attitudes towards scientific integrity and scientific misconduct. A syllabus was designed that comprised the following six topics: theoretical foundations of GSP; scientific publishing; empirical data; scientific supervision and teamwork; clinical research; personal interests. The comparison pre versus post-intervention yielded statistically significant changes in regard to the participants' knowledge and attitude toward all forms of scientific misconduct treated in the course. As the majority of participants was not familiar with the fundamental regulations or guidelines of GSP, it seems crucial to train students in actively applying such norms to real-world conflicts. Students' unfamiliarity with the fundamentals of GSP can be linked to the fact that many students have already experienced forms of scientific misconduct. Thus, GSP syllabi should be closely adjusted to a student's realm of experience. All in all, courses on GSP can be seen as a potential means to increase the number of young scholars.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCurriculumScientific MisconductStudents, MedicalEducation, MedicalFemaleGermanyGuidelines as TopicHumansMalePilot ProjectsProblem-Based LearningTeaching MaterialsYoung AdultCurriculum developmentGood scientific practiceMedical ethics in GermanyProblem-based learningScientific integrityScientific misconduct

Identifiers

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.