ReviewMedEdPublish (2016)2021
Improving Understanding of Reflexivity in Family Medicine: Development of an Educational Tool Based on a Rapid Review.
Review in MedEdPublish (2016), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reflective Tool on Advanced Access to Support Primary Healthcare Teams: Development and Validation of an Online Questionnaire.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Six ways to get a grip on developing reflexivity statements.Canadian medical education journal · 2024Review
- Patients' perspectives on their motivations for participating in non-clinical medical teaching and what they gain from their experience: a qualitative study informed by critical theory.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of Shared Decision-making Training Programs for Health Care Professionals Using Reflexivity Strategies: Secondary Analysis of a Systematic Review.JMIR medical education · 2022Review
- Fostering Reflexivity in Medical Students: Is Patient Engagement a Promising Avenue? A Qualitative Case Study.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended.
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.