Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36920459›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2023

Meeting the Shared Goals of a Student-Selected Component: Pilot Evaluation of a Collaborative Systematic Review.

Faheem Bhatti, Oliver Mowforth, Max Butler, Zainab Bhatti, Amir Rafati Fard, Isla Kuhn, Benjamin M Davies

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2023. 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
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Faheem BhattiSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3897-4196
Oliver MowforthDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6788-745X
Max ButlerDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2536-0534
Zainab BhattiSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Nottingham Medical School, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4433-2354
Amir Rafati FardDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1804-2586
Isla KuhnCambridge University Medical Library, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2879-4020
Benjamin M DaviesDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0591-5069
University of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch methodology is insufficiently featured in undergraduate medical curricula. Student-selected components are designed to offer some research opportunities but frequently fail to meet student or supervisor expectations, such as completion or publication. We hypothesized that a collaborative, educational approach to a systematic review (SR), whereby medical students worked together, may improve student experience and increase success.

objectiveThis study aimed to establish whether offering a small team of students the opportunity to take part in the screening phase of SRs led by an experienced postgraduate team could enhance the learning experience of students, overcome the barriers to successful research engagement, and deliver published output.

methodsPostgraduate researchers from the University of Cambridge led a team of 14 medical students to work on 2 neurosurgical SRs. One student was appointed as the lead for each SR. All students were provided with training on SR methodology and participated in title and abstract screening using Rayyan software. Students completed prepilot, midscreening, and postscreening questionnaires on their research background, perceptions, knowledge, confidence, and experience. Questions were scored on a Likert scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree).

resultsOf the 14 students involved, 29% (n=4) reported that they had received sufficient training in research methodology at medical school. Positive trends in student knowledge, confidence, and experience of SR methodology were noted across the 3 questionnaire time points. Mean responses to "I am satisfied with the level of guidance I am receiving," "I am enjoying being involved in the SR process," and "I could not gain this understanding of research from passive learning e.g., textbook or lecture" were greater than 8.0 at all time points. Students reported "being involved in this research has made me more likely to do research in the future" (mean 8.57, SD 1.50) and that "this collaborative SR improved my research experience" (mean 8.50, SD 1.56).

conclusionsThis collaborative approach appears to be a potentially useful method of providing students with research experience; however, it requires further evaluation.

Indexed as

collaborationcollaborativecurriculacurriculuminformation sciencelibrary sciencemedical educationmedical librarianmedical schoolmedical studentmethodologyresearch methodologyresearch trainingreviewsearch strategystudent-selected componentsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36920459
PMCPMC10132035
OpenAlexW4322711842

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.