ArticleCurrent pediatric reviews2025
A Survey of the Course: 'How to Successfully Write a Scientific Article in Pediatric Settings'.
Article in Current pediatric reviews, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the present survey was to analyze the knowledge and skills in medical paper writing of physicians who attended the course "how to write successfully a scientific paper."
methodsA blind survey was used to analyze participants' knowledge on the topic of the course "how to write successfully a scientific paper." Before starting the workshop, participants anonymously filled out the input questionnaire containing 12 preliminary data questions. The three-hour course included a lecture on the steps of creating and writing a scientific article with examples. At the end, all participants anonymously completed the exit questionnaire consisting of 18 questions. Differences and associations between the collected data were analyzed using appropriate statistical tests.
resultsThe survey included 22 participants, most of whom were women (16, 72.7%). The participants' educational level was proportional to their age. 12 of the participants had an intermediate level, while the others reported higher English proficiency. Half of the participants had never published an article. A significant difference was observed between English level and being the first author of an article published in a scientific journal (p = 0.044). Before class, only 13.6% of participants knew that guidelines are mandatory for making clinical decisions according to evidence- based medicine. There was a significant positive correlation between sex and current affiliation (p = 0.038). A negative correlation was observed between sex and article publication (p = 0.037). A positive correlation was observed between English level and current affiliation (p = 0.020). There was a negative correlation observed between previous sources of learning scientific article writing and having already published an article (p = 0.025). A positive correlation was found between reading an article and publishing it (p = 0.046). Statistical analysis showed a significant difference between reading frequency, number of published articles, being the first author, and knowing the title of a scientific article (p = 0.036, p = 0.027, and p = 0.030, respectively).
conclusionThe results of the questionnaires revealed discrepancies in prior research engagement and understanding of scientific concepts and rules. This survey highlights the importance of the course "how to successfully write a scientific article" in improving participants' knowledge of scientific work and the process of creating an article for submission to medical journals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37877152What 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.