ArticlePloS one2026
THESES-M: protocol for the development of a reporting guideline for medical theses.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMedical theses represent one of the most widely produced yet least standardized forms of health sciences research. Their structure and reporting vary substantially across institutions, programs, and regions, and no formal reporting criteria exist to guide their preparation. This variability affects the consistency and evaluation of medical theses and may influence subsequent research reporting practices. This study describes the protocol for the development of THESES-M (Transparent and Holistic Evaluation Standards for Educational Studies in Medicine), a reporting guideline for medical theses. MATERIALS AND
methodsTHESES-M will be developed in accordance with the guidance proposed by Moher et al. and the recommendations of the EQUATOR Network. The study will include a literature review to identify structural components of medical theses, generation of a preliminary list of reporting items, and three Delphi rounds with an expert panel using a 1-10 Likert scale. Consensus thresholds are predefined (≥80% rating ≥7 for inclusion; ≥ 80% rating ≤4 for exclusion). Agreement and stability will be assessed using median scores, interquartile ranges, and Kendall's coefficient of concordance. Items without consensus will be discussed in an in-person consensus meeting. The study outputs will include a consensus-based checklist and an explanation and elaboration document. Both will undergo pilot testing with medical students to assess clarity, feasibility, and usability. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Research and Ethics Committees of the Faculty of Medicine, National Autonomous University of Mexico (FM/DI/068/2025). Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and submission of the final guideline to the EQUATOR Network. THESES-M is registered with the EQUATOR Network as a reporting guideline under 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.