Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34652832›Full record

ArticleMedical education2022

Delineating the field of medical education: Bibliometric research approach(es).

Lauren A Maggio, Anton Ninkov, Jason R Frank, Joseph A Costello, Anthony R Artino

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A State-of-the-Art Review of the Historical Evolution of the Graduate Medical Educator Role.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. "Can you recommend a journal for my paper?"Perspectives on medical education · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Lauren A MaggioUniformed Services, University of the Health Sciences in, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2997-6133
Anton NinkovSchool of Information Studies, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8276-7656
Jason R FrankSpecialty Education for the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Joseph A CostelloUniformed Services, University of the Health Sciences in, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Anthony R ArtinoHuman Function, and Rehabilitation Sciences, Evaluation and Educational Research, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences · USUniversity of Ottawa · CAGeorge Washington University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe field of medical education remains poorly delineated such that there is no broad consensus of articles or journals that comprise 'the field'. This lack of consensus indicates a missed opportunity for researchers to generate insights about the field that could facilitate conducting bibliometric studies and other research designs (e.g., systematic reviews) and also enable individuals to identify themselves as 'medical education researchers'. Other fields have utilised bibliometric field delineation, which is the assigning of articles or journals to a certain field in an effort to define that field. PROCESS: In this Research Approach, three bibliometric field delineation approaches-information retrieval, core journals, and journal co-citation-are introduced. For each approach, the authors describe attempts to apply it in medical education and identify related strengths and weaknesses. Based on co-citation, the authors propose the Medical Education Journal List 24 (MEJ-24), as a starting point for delineating medical education and invite the community to collaborate on improving and potentially expanding this list. PEARLS: As a research approach, field delineation is complicated, and there is no clear best way to delineate the field of medical education. However, recent advances in information science provide potentially fruitful approaches to deal with the field's complexity. When considering these approaches, researchers should consider collaborating with bibliometricians. Bibliometric approaches rely on available metadata for articles and journals, which necessitates that researchers examine the metadata prior to analysis to understand its strengths and weaknesses, and to assess how this might affect data interpretation. While using bibliometric approaches for field delineation is valuable, it is important to remember that these techniques are only as good as the research team's interpretation of the data, which suggests that an expanded approach is needed to better delineate medical education, an approach that includes active discussion within the medical education community.

Indexed as

BibliometricsEducation, MedicalHumans

Identifiers

PMID34652832
PMCPMC9298433
OpenAlexW3207850692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.