ArticleCureus2024
A Cross-Sectional Study Evaluating the Basic Course in Biomedical Research Among Medical Postgraduates and Teachers.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
Introduction and methodology This study aims to give feedback on the Basic Course in Biomedical Research (BCBR) program, an initiative of the National Medical Council (NMC) in collaboration with the National Institute of Epidemiology (ICMR-NIE) using the SWAYAM ("Study Webs of Active-Learning for Young Aspiring Minds") portal. The objectives of the study areto evaluate the usefulness of BCBR and the content and conduct of the BCBR program using a questionnaire among medical postgraduates and teachers. The study design used was a cross-sectional study and collected data from 392 participants who completed the BCBR program. A validated questionnaire was utilized to gather information on participant demographics, reasons for enrolment, satisfaction with course material, assignments, technical issues during exams, and perceived usefulness of the course. Results The study found a predominance of postgraduate students among participants (65.31%), reflecting their inclination towards research. Primary reasons for enrolment included institutional requirements and eligibility criteria to appear for the final postgraduate examination. Most participants utilized both videos and lecture hand-outs. This course facilitated its participants to improve their ability to conduct research by 89.03%. Feedback suggested a need for improvement in course content, particularly in simplifying statistical concepts and incorporating more interactive sessions and practical demonstrations. Conclusion The findings highlight the effectiveness of the BCBR program to up-skill the ability of participants to perform research. Overall, the study offers valuable feedback about the BCBR course.
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.