ArticleMedical science educator2024
Exploring the Clinical Usefulness of Undergraduate Medical Research: A Mixed-Methods Study.
Article in Medical science educator, 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.
- The educational outcomes of medical student engagement in research projects: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2026Article
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
A significant amount of published clinical research has no measurable impact on health and disease outcomes, and research in undergraduate medical education is viewed as especially susceptible. The aims of this mixed methods study were to (a) to use group concept mapping (GCM) to explore key features identified by hospital physicians, medical educators, and medical students as central to clinical usefulness in an undergraduate medical research context, and (b) review a sample of undergraduate medical research projects based on usefulness criteria described by Ioannidis (2016). In the GCM procedure, 54 respondents (39 students, 15 physicians) from an Irish medical school participated across each of three phases: brainstorming, sorting, and rating. Data was analysed using multidimensional scaling and hierarchical clustering. A retrospective analysis of 252 student projects was also completed using a rubric based on Ioannidis's (2016) six domains of "clinical usefulness": problem base, context placement and information gain, pragmatism, patient-centredness, feasibility, and transparency. Projects were scored for each domain by three assessors. Results were analysed and presented using descriptive analysis.GCM analysis revealed the following "clinically useful" research characteristics: optimal design and methodology, practicality, research skills development, translational impact, patient-centredness, and asking a clinical question. Following a rubric-based analysis of projects, the highest scoring categories (mean rating; range of 1-4) were feasibility (3.57), transparency (3.32), and problem base (3.05). The lowest scoring areas were context placement and information gain (2.73), pragmatism (2.68), and patient-centredness (212). We identified considerable conceptual overlap between stakeholder consensus views on "clinical usefulness" as applied to undergraduate research and Ioannidis's criteria. Patient-centredness was identified as a domain requiring greater emphasis during the design of undergraduate medical research. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-024-02035-7.
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.