Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36312809›Full record

ArticleATS scholar2022

Development of a Scientific Writing Course to Increase Fellow Scholarship.

Amy L Moore, Neal F Chaisson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ATS scholar, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Amy L MooreDepartment of Scientific Publications, Education Institute; and.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5177-6023
Neal F ChaissonRespiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8207-0966

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Physicians in training are often taught how to conduct original research but may lack the skills necessary to write their results in a paper for the peer-reviewed medical literature. To help our critical care fellows increase their publication rates, we implemented an 8-hour scientific writing course that provides a structured approach to writing an academic research paper. We have demonstrated an increase in publication rate during fellowship from an average of 0.7 manuscripts per fellow just before course inception to 3.7 manuscripts per fellow in the current graduating class. We highlight strategies for developing a writing course aligned with adult learning theory within three key areas: planning, pedagogy, and implementation. Planning strategies center around creating a case for change, including multiple stakeholders with diverse backgrounds, including the research mentor, and ensuring accountability among stakeholders. Pedagogical strategies focus on harnessing the power of experiential learning, considering a flipped classroom approach, and peer teaching to leverage social and cognitive congruence. Implementation strategies include breaking down the writing process into manageable tasks, organizing the writing process according to learner needs, using peer review processes to drive learning, and celebrating the accomplishments of learners within the course. These strategies represent broad initiatives that can be tailored to local training needs and instituted across a wide variety of teaching platforms.

Indexed as

authorshipcurriculumgraduate medical educationresearch activitiesteaching

Identifiers

PMID36312809
PMCPMC9590585

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.