ArticleMedical science educator2023
Peer-Led Versus Conventional Teacher-Led Methodological Research Education Sessions: An Initiative to Improve Medical Education Research Teaching.
Article in Medical science educator, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- From hesitation to participation: a narrative review of facilitators and barriers for healthcare professionals' engagement in medical education research.BMC medical education · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: To enhance doctors' engagement with research, the National Medical Research Association (NMRA) developed a research teaching series, delivering peer-led (PL) sessions by medical students and conventional teacher-led (CL) sessions by licenced physicians/lecturers. We assessed the effectiveness of the series and compared the PL and CL approaches. Methods: The teaching sessions were delivered virtually via Zoom weekly either PL or CL. Feedback was provided by participants on completion of every session using a 10-point Likert scale assessing their knowledge pre- and post-training. Results: A total of 87 participants were included generating 782 feedback forms, 367 (47.1%) for PL and 412 for CL sessions. The median knowledge scores significantly increased following each session ( Conclusion: Didactic PL research training sessions are equally effective as CL sessions.
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.