ArticleCureus2021
Leveraging Google Scholar to Facilitate Resident Research Reporting.
Article in Cureus, 2021. 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 guide to creating a high-quality curriculum vitae.AEM education and training · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires annual reporting of resident scholarly activities. However, this can be time-consuming for both residents and residency leadership and may not contain the most accurate or up-to-date information. This study sought to determine whether Google Scholar could adequately identify resident publications when compared with their ACGME self-report. Methods This was a cross-sectional study comparing resident Google Scholar publications with their ACGME self-reported data from 2018 to 2020. Manuscripts were only included if they were published prior to June 30, 2020, and while the participant was a resident at Rush University Medical Center. We did not count articles published prior to beginning residency. We independently collected data from the residents' self-report and Google Scholar profiles and compared the results. We assessed the overall concordance between data. When a discordant publication was identified, it was reviewed in full and discussed with the resident to ensure that it was correctly attributed to the resident. Data were presented primarily as descriptive statistics including percentages. Results Of 24 (96%) residents, 23 created Google Scholar profiles. There were 22 total publications. Google Scholar was concordant with self-report in 18 (78.3%) instances and discordant in five (21.7%) cases. In all five residents (n = 9 publications), the discordant publication was correctly identified by Google Scholar despite not being reported by the resident in their ACGME self-report. Conclusion We found that resident Google Scholar accounts resulted in the identification of publications that had not been previously reported on their ACGME self-report without missing any relevant publications.
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.