ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2020
Performance of Chinese medical postgraduate students in literature searching: a two-center survey and analysis.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A questionnaire-based study on literature searches among medical postgraduates.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo explore the performance status of Chinese postgraduate medical students in literature searching.
methodsA self-designed online questionnaire was used to assess the literature search performance of postgraduate students (PGSs) from the classes of 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 from two medical colleges. The items of the questionnaire mainly included: the demographic characteristics of the PGSs, methods of literature review, literature reading habits, and use of literature. We also designed a self-assessed score that ranged from the lowest 1 point to the highest 5 points.
resultsA total of 902 PGSs (482 male, average age: 29.4±5.8 years old, working time range: 0-10 years, average 3.7±2.4 years) completed the questionnaire. Most PGSs investigated literature only at the work tasks (632, 70.1%) and writing papers (571, 63.3%) stages. Of the PGSs, 542 (60.1%) PGSs searched literature frequency (≥1 paper/week), and 114 (12.6%) did not perform advanced searches, and some had no knowledge of advanced search techniques at all. Most PGSs had not read more than 100 Chinese articles or English articles before. Most PGSs were used to read articles from the most authoritative journals (665, 73.7%) or high impact factor (IF) (540, 59.9%). PGSs (845, 93.7%) only read the full text of articles they deemed important. Of the PGSs, 441 (48.9%) did not use literature management tools. For self-assessed score of literature searching and reading skills, the mean was 2.1 (standard deviation, 0.8). Reading literature efficiently (710, 78.7%) and tracking recent literatures (615, 68.2%) were the two needed literature skills reported.
conclusionsChinese medical PGSs still have room for improvement in relation to literature investigation. Intensive training in literature searching should be given to improve their performance.
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.