ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Exploring clinical research efficacy of teaching and practicing medical professionals in Pakistan.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe current study aimed to explore clinical research efficacy of teaching and practicing medical professionals in Pakistan. The role of socio-demographic factors in this context was also investigated.
methodsThis study using cross-sectional research design was carried out from August to December 2019. A sample of teaching and practicing medical professionals (N=96) was collected through purposive sampling from Islamabad and Rawalpindi. Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory (CRAI) was used along with the demographic datasheet. Research data was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS-21).
resultsThe results of the study revealed that teaching and practicing medical professionals feel most competent in 'collaborating with others' while the research area in which they feel least competent is 'securing funds for a study'. It was found that there are significant differences in the research efficacy of teaching and practicing medical professionals with reference to age (p< 0.00), gender (p< 0.01), designation (p< 0.00), number of articles published (p< 0.00), number of articles under review (p< 0.03), number of articles submitted (p< 0.03), and number of funded projects completed (p< 0.02). Satisfaction with salary and number of hours at work per week have no impact on their research efficacy.
conclusionsFindings have implications for policy makers and medical institutions to promote research skills in teaching and practicing medical professionals.
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.