Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: a systematic review

被引:157
作者
Cook, Davin A.
Beckman, Thomas J.
Bordage, Georges
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Coll Med, Div Gen Internal Med, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[2] Univ Illinois, Dept Med Educ, Chicago, IL USA
关键词
review [publication type; education; medical; research design; standards; professional competence; periodicals; guidelines; data collection;
D O I
10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02777.x
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE Determine the prevalence of essential elements of reporting in experimental studies in medical education. DESIGN Systematic review. DATA SOURCES Articles published in 2003 and 2004 in Academic Medicine, Advances in Health Sciences Education, American journal of Surgery, journal of General Internal Medicine, Medical Education, and Teaching and Learning in Medicine. REVIEW METHODS Articles describing education experiments, including evaluation studies with experimental designs, were identified (n = 185) by reviewing titles and abstracts. A random sample (n = 110) was selected for full review. The full text of each article was evaluated for the presence of guideline-based features of quality reporting: a critical literature review, conceptual framework, statement of study intent (e.g. aim, research question, or hypothesis), statement of study design, definition of main intervention and comparison intervention or control group, and consideration of human subject rights. RESULTS Of the 105 articles suitable for review, 47 (45%) contained a critical literature review and 58 (55%) presented a conceptual framework. A statement of study intent was present in 80 articles (76%), among which the independent and dependent variables were operationally defined in 38 (47%) and 26 articles (32%), respectively. A total of 17 articles (16%) contained an explicit study design statement. Among the 48 studies with a comparison group, 35 (73%) clearly defined the comparison intervention or control group. Institutional review board approval or participant consent was reported in 44 articles (42%). CONCLUSIONS The quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education was generally poor. Criteria are proposed as a starting point for establishing reporting standards for medical education research.
引用
收藏
页码:737 / 745
页数:9
相关论文
共 63 条
[1]   Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: survey of instructions for authors [J].
Altman, DG .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2005, 330 (7499) :1056-1057
[2]   Poor-quality medical research - What can journals do? [J].
Altman, DG .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2002, 287 (21) :2765-2767
[3]  
[Anonymous], 5 INT C PEER REV BIO
[4]  
[Anonymous], 5 INT C PEER REV BIO
[5]   Research in medical education: finding its place [J].
Bligh, J ;
Parsell, G .
MEDICAL EDUCATION, 1999, 33 (03) :162-163
[6]   Experimental study design and grant writing in eight steps and 28 questions [J].
Bordage, G ;
Dawson, B .
MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2003, 37 (04) :376-385
[7]   Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: The strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports [J].
Bordage, G .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2001, 76 (09) :889-896
[8]   Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative [J].
Bossuyt, PM ;
Reitsma, JB ;
Bruns, DE ;
Gatsonis, CA ;
Glasziou, PP ;
Irwig, LM ;
Lijmer, JG ;
Moher, D ;
Rennie, D ;
de Vet, HCW .
CLINICAL CHEMISTRY, 2003, 49 (01) :1-6
[9]   An emerging renaissance in medical education [J].
Branch, MT ;
Kern, DE .
JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2004, 19 (05) :606-609
[10]  
CAMPBELL DT, 1966, EXPT QUASIEXPERIENTA