ArticleGMS journal for medical education2022
Medical dissertation basics: analysis of a course of study for medical students.
Article in GMS journal for medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Pedagogic Strategies and Contents in Medical Writing/Publishing Education: A Comprehensive Systematic Survey.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2024Review
- Scientific skills in health services research - knowledge, utilization and needs for continuing education among staff at the University Hospital Tübingen.GMS journal for medical education · 2024Article
- Taking responsibility.GMS journal for medical education · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although the majority of medical students in Germany pursue a doctorate, only a portion of them receive a standardized scientific training, which is reflected in the quality issues seen in medical doctoral theses. The course Medical Dissertation Basics was conceptualized and scientifically monitored in order to support medical doctoral students on the one hand and to improve the quality of their scientific work on the other. Methodology: The course consists of three modules. Module I, which is an introductory module, covers time and writing management and addresses how to approach literature and the principles of scientific work as well as the chapters required in a dissertation and the dissertation presentation and defense. In the practical module II, doctoral students write sections of their dissertation chapters and receive feedback via peer and expert reviews. Module III includes training on dissertation presentations and their defense. For objective analysis purposes, a multiple-choice test was administered before and after module I. Medical students from semesters 2 to 6 served as a control group. Questionnaires were used to subjectively analyze the training and support functions of modules I-III. Results: High participation rates and the fact that the modules were taught numerous times show that doctoral students accept the courses. The objective analysis of module I showed a highly significant knowledge acquisition of the course group (N=55) in contrast to the control group (N=34). The doctoral students rated the course modules I-III with grades between 1.0 and 1.25 (grade A+/A; N=20-65 SD=0-0.44), felt well supported and estimated their learning success as high. Conclusion: The study indicates knowledge acquisition in module I and a high doctoral student satisfaction with all modules. For an objective analysis of modules II-III, a comparison of completed doctoral theses (course participants vs. non-participants) would be appropriate but would only make sense in a few years. Based on the results of our study, we recommend that other faculties implement similar courses.
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.