ArticleMedical science educator2022
Scoping Review: Research Training During Medical School.
Article in Medical science educator, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research Participation During a National Educational Disruption: Insights From a Natural Experiment in Medical Education.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Bridging the gap between research training and dissemination: evaluation of a feedback-rich medical student research presentation program.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Core, Evidence Application, Research (CEAR): a Theory to Frame Separate Skills for Evidence-Based Practice and Research in Medical Education.Medical science educator · 2026Article
- Research Participation and Training Needs Among Medical Experimental Technology Undergraduates: Evidence from a Chinese Medical University.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Research in Medical School: Highlighting the Fruit of the Longitudinal Research Experience in the Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2025Article
- Student perceptions of GenAI as a virtual tutor to support collaborative research training for health professionals.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Assessing research self-efficacy and attitudes among medical students: a quasi-experimental study evaluating the impact of a structured training program.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Impact of online expert interview-based research training on medical trainees' knowledge and confidence: a mixed-methods design.International journal of emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Scientific competence during medical education - insights from a cross-sectional study at a German Medical School.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Relationship matters: a qualitative study of medical students' experiences in a learner-driven research program in South Korea.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- SOARinG to New Heights Through a Structured Medical Student Research Program.Advances in medical education and practice · 2023Article
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
Fostering skills in research is important for medical schools. This scoping review examined undergraduate curricular structures devoted to research training and their outcomes. For the sixty papers meeting inclusion criteria, descriptive statistics and a thematic analysis were conducted. Forty (67%) articles described US programs, with 30 (50%) being mandatory. Timing of research training was variable across included studies with the majority (58%) describing embedded longitudinal curricula. Reported benefits included enhanced knowledge, improved research and writing skills, clarity around career plans, and mentoring relationships. There are many curricular structures for undergraduate research training, but no high-quality evidence to support particular designs.
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.