ArticleAEM education and training2019
Critical Appraisal of Emergency Medicine Educational Research: The Best Publications of 2016.
Article in AEM education and training, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leveling the field: Development of reliable scoring rubrics for quantitative and qualitative medical education research abstracts.AEM education and training · 2021Article
- Emergency Medicine Education Research Since the 2012 Consensus Conference: How Far Have We Come and What's Next?AEM education and training · 2020Article
- Critical Appraisal of Emergency Medicine Educational Research: The Best Publications of 2016.AEM education and training · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objectives were to critically appraise the emergency medicine (EM) medical education literature published in 2016 and review the highest-quality quantitative and qualitative studies.
methodsA search of the English language literature in 2016 querying MEDLINE, Scopus, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and PsychInfo identified 510 papers related to medical education in EM. Two reviewers independently screened all of the publications using previously established exclusion criteria. The 25 top-scoring quantitative studies based on methodology and all six qualitative studies were scored by all reviewers using selected scoring criteria that have been adapted from previous installments. The top-scoring articles were highlighted and trends in medical education research were described.
resultsSeventy-five manuscripts met inclusion criteria and were scored. Eleven quantitative and one qualitative papers were the highest scoring and are summarized in this article.
conclusionThis annual critical appraisal series highlights the best EM education research articles published in 2016.
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.