ArticlePloS one2025
Comparison between random and convenience samples in a multicenter survey to evaluate medical students' quality of life.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of the flipped classroom model on college students' physical exercise behavior: a chain mediation effect of self-directed learning ability and exercise motivation.Frontiers in public health · 2026Trial
- Methodological Aspects of Slow-Paced Breathing in Healthy Young Individuals with Optimal and Suboptimal Spirometric Indices.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
Evaluating medical students' mental and physical health is challenged by difficulties in obtaining randomized samples and the limitations of convenience samples. We conducted a multicenter study to assess the educational environment, quality of life, and emotional competence of medical students. Between 2011 and 2012, a total of 1,350 randomly selected students from 22 schools and 1,201 volunteer students from 50 schools across Brazil completed all questionnaires (WHOQOL-BREF, VERAS-Q, IRI, RS-14, BDI, PSQI, ESS, IDATE, MBI, and DREEM). Monitoring, support for local researchers, and personalized feedback strategies were applied to ensure the participation of randomized students, achieving a response rate of 81.8%. The platform was also available to volunteers. The statistical analysis examined the effect of these two recruitment strategies using general linear models controlling for sex, age, body mass, course year, physical activity and metabolic equivalents, school type, city population, and location. A significance level of 5% and effect sizes estimated by Cohen's eta-squared were applied to the variables of interest, both using the Bonferroni correction. The volunteer group had more women, fewer students from the final course years, and a larger number of students from private schools and larger cities. These variables largely explained the statistically significant differences and effect sizes observed between randomized and volunteer groups. In conclusion, although some valuable lessons and motivational strategies were identified, the considerable effort required to achieve high adherence through active outreach may not be justified, as results between random and volunteer samples showed minimal differences in questionnaire responses. Our findings suggest that future studies should consider lighter motivational strategies to reduce the burden on research teams. Data and R scripts to replicate the statistical analysis are available in Harvard Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/YECV8E.
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.