Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36698117›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2023

A Modified Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MMERSQI) developed by Delphi consensus.

Mansour Al Asmri, M Sayeed Haque, Jim Parle

Abstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
–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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Assessment practices for dietetic students: An updated systematic review (2017-2024).Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2025
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Trial
  19. Review
  20. Use of Operative Video Technology in Surgical Education: A Systematic Review.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mansour Al AsmriClinical Skills Training Centre, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
M Sayeed HaqueInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Jim ParleInstitute of Clinical Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. J.V.Parle@bham.ac.uk.

Funding

University of Birmingham TF-BRGM-PP-0817
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) is widely used to appraise the methodological quality of medical education studies. However, the MERSQI lacks some criteria which could facilitate better quality assessment. The objective of this study is to achieve consensus among experts on: (1) the MERSQI scoring system and the relative importance of each domain (2) modifications of the MERSQI.

methodA modified Delphi technique was used to achieve consensus among experts in the field of medical education. The initial item pool contained all items from MERSQI and items added in our previous published work. Each Delphi round comprised a questionnaire and, after the first iteration, an analysis and feedback report. We modified the quality instruments' domains, items and sub-items and re-scored items/domains based on the Delphi panel feedback.

resultsA total of 12 experts agreed to participate and were sent the first and second-round questionnaires. First round: 12 returned of which 11 contained analysable responses; second-round: 10 returned analysable responses. We started with seven domains with an initial item pool of 12 items and 38 sub-items. No change in the number of domains or items resulted from the Delphi process; however, the number of sub-items increased from 38 to 43 across the two Delphi rounds. In Delphi-2: eight respondents gave 'study design' the highest weighting while 'setting' was given the lowest weighting by all respondents. There was no change in the domains' average weighting score and ranks between rounds.

conclusionsThe final criteria list and the new domain weighting score of the Modified MERSQI (MMERSQI) was satisfactory to all respondents. We suggest that the MMERSQI, in building on the success of the MERSQI, may help further establish a reference standard of quality measures for many medical education studies.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalDelphi TechniqueHumansResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesDelphiMedical educationMethodological qualityQuality instrumentQuantitative studies

Identifiers

PMID36698117
PMCPMC9878889

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.