ArticleJournal of neurological surgery reports2025
Clinical Research Primer for Medical Students: Behind the Curtain, a Framework on Peer Review for Trainees.
Article in Journal of neurological surgery reports, 2025. 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.
- Pitch Perfect: Clinical Research Primer on the Art of Pitching Projects for Medical Students.Journal of neurological surgery reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Academic scholarship is an increasingly emphasized component of undergraduate medical education (UME), in particular since the USMLE Step 1 examination transitioned to a pass/fail grading scheme in 2022. Peer review is a cornerstone of academic publishing, but essentially no formal training exists at the UME or graduate medical education levels to prepare trainees for participation in the process as authors or reviewers. This clinical research primer presents an introductory set of guidelines and pearls to empower trainee participation in the peer-review process as both authors and reviewers. We outline a systematic approach to manuscript evaluation and recommend a nonlinear strategy that begins with the Abstract and Methods, followed by Figures, Tables, and Results, concluding with the Discussion. This framework includes guidelines for constructing effective reviews, from initial summary and overall recommendations to specific, actionable comments. Participation in peer review can also advance trainees' scholarly development by exposing gaps in literature that inspire new research questions and developing their ability to anticipate and address potential reviewer critiques in their own manuscript preparation. While initial implementation requires close supervision from experienced mentors, this structured approach streamlines the peer-review learning process and provides substantial benefits for all participants in academic publishing, enhancing both mentorship relationships and scholarly development.
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.