Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36824561›Full record

ArticleCureus2023

Innovation in Learning: Critical Review of the Literature Is Absolutely Necessary for the Modern Medical Student.

Carl Hoegerl, Adam Barton, Raena Pettitt

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Carl HoegerlNeurology, Centra Health System, Lynchburg, USA.
Adam BartonInternal Medicine, Liberty University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Lynchburg, USA.
Raena PettittFamily Medicine, Liberty University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Lynchburg, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The concept of a journal club has been around for decades and is a useful tool to help teach residents about evidence-based medicine. Although some students may be exposed to the concept during their third or fourth year of medical school, many do not have exposure to this until their residency. This innovation report describes a program to help introduce first and second-year medical students to a team-based approach to journal clubs so that they can apply principles of evidence-based practice early on in their medical school training. In the Fall of 2020, a faculty and student effort led by members of the internal medicine and family medicine interest groups met to form a team-based program approach to the journal club focusing on first and second-year students. Teams of students were formed, and they were allowed to pick an article to review. They presented their findings to a group of students and faculty members via online meetings (due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) restrictions). This program has been introduced and done for two academic years. During that time, over 50 students participated in the program along with six faculty members. Countless students and faculty have been an audience to the presentations that have been done. The program is entering its third year of providing an engaging avenue for students to gain experience in analyzing articles and making presentations. The journal club program has and continues to be praised by faculty and students for its unique approach and style to a decade-old tradition. We recommend that medical schools and other health-science programs across the country consider introducing a program like this to help stimulate critical discussions in an era of increasingly published medical literature. It is critical that students be given a chance to apply evidence-based practices early on in their medical education careers.

Indexed as

critical reviewjournal clubliterature reviewmedical educationosteopathic medicine

Identifiers

PMID36824561
PMCPMC9942691

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.