ArticleCureus2018
A Medical Article Publishing Club for Junior Doctors: A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 2018. 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.
- Ambiguity Detection in Medical Exams via Large Language Models: Retrospective Cross-Sectional Pilot Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- A Survey of the Course: 'How to Successfully Write a Scientific Article in Pediatric Settings'.Current pediatric reviews · 2025Article
- Developing a Beginner's Guide to Writing a Clinical Case Report: A Pilot Evaluation by Junior Doctors.Cureus · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction There is an increasing expectation for junior doctors to have a publication. However, there is not much help provided to bridge the gap between project completion or case reporting and getting published. Our previous study demonstrated that junior doctors felt that involvement in medical article publishing contributes to learning and that it is an effective teaching method. Junior doctors also agreed that it is difficult to get published. Based on this study we started a medical article publishing (MAP) club. The aim of this study was to assess user satisfaction with the MAP club. Materials and methods Questionnaires were sent to 12 doctors who obtained advice from the MAP club since its inception in December 2017. The questionnaire contained two questions: (1) how useful they found the advice and guidance received and (2) how likely they were to recommend the MAP club to their colleagues. The 10-point Likert scale responses were analyzed quantitatively. Written comments and suggestions were analyzed qualitatively by thematic analysis. Results Respondents gave scores of either 9 or 10 to both questions indicating that they found the advice and guidance received very useful and that they were very likely to recommend the MAP club to their colleagues (weighted scores 9.75 and 9.92, respectively). The thematic analysis revealed three main themes: (1) positive features of the MAP club, (2) what participants gained from the MAP club and (3) recommendations for the future. The majority of respondents commented that the club was useful, helpful, supportive, and informative. More than a third commented that the club provided encouragement, confidence, practical tips, learning experience, and the opportunity to publish. A similar proportion asked that we keep the club going and provide dedicated teaching sessions. Conclusions Junior doctors feel that the MAP club has positive features and has contributed to their learning, education, and publishing skills. A proportion of them would also like to receive formal teaching sessions concerning medical article publishing. This study has highlighted the benefits and importance of establishing a medical article publishing club for junior doctors.
Indexed as
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.