ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2023
A Cross-Sectional Study on Inequity and Unmet Needs in Conducting Systematic Reviews (SRMA) and Meta-Analysis Among Medical Students and Junior Doctors.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow a transparent, rigorous, and replicable analysis to summarize the results of multiple related studies and are considered top of the evidence-based medicine study hierarchy. The COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on the unmet educational needs of students worldwide, notably those from underprivileged backgrounds. This cross-sectional study aimed to ascertain students' and junior doctors' attitudes on their current knowledge, confidence and preparedness of appraising and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analysis internationally. Methods: A free online webinar was held in May 2021 by the senior author and a pre-event questionnaire was distributed. Responses collected were used for analysis anonymously to ascertain students' knowledge, experience, and confidence in preparing a systematic review and meta-analysis using a 1-5 Likert scale using IBM SPSS 26.0. Associations were examined using Chi-square and crosstabs analysis. Results: Out of 2004 responses from 104 countries included in the analysis, the majority of delegates were from lower middle-income countries and were not familiar with the PRISMA checklist (59.2% and 81.1% respectively of the total number of participants). The majority had never attended any formal training (83%) and felt their medical institute gave them minimal advice (72.5%) in preparing systematic reviews. Among those who had attended formal training, the proportion was significantly higher in those belonging to high and upper middle-income countries combined (20.3%) than lower and lower-middle-income countries combined (15%). Conclusion: This study highlights gaps that need addressing to enhance the knowledge of medical students and junior doctors performing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Clear disparities are found in country income and the level of education. Future large-scale studies are needed to understand the rationale of working on online research projects and the opportunities available to medical students and junior doctors that may lead to medical curriculum changes.
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.