ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2019
Collaborative mentoring for effective medical research groups.
Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Professional experiences with journal club implementation in postgraduate nursing: a qualitative study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Bibliometric Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Assessing Medical Students' Perception of Implementing Journal Club Activities: A Qualitative Study.Cureus · 2023Article
- Research barriers in the Global South: Mexico.Journal of global health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Research benefits professors and students, mentors and mentees, however, many Universities lack formal programs, especially in basic sciences such as anatomy. Faculty, many times, lack the time, resources, and a well-structured program. Mentoring and collaborative work, have played an important role in creating an effective environment that inspires its members into scientific production, enhances research skills, while gaining experience. The authors presented a student anatomy research group (Grupo de Investigación en Anatomía [GIA]) model that integrates faculty from basic and clinical fields through a collaborative mentoring and tightly organized structure that increases training, experience, and scientific output. The transformation stages described shows the progress, reporting the fundamental elements for integration of the model, with results presented at 16 years of experience of the group in the Anatomy department. Results evidence a steady increase in student/professor involvement, scientific publishing, presentations in meetings (national/international), and cites.
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.