Background and objective: The value of medical dissertations has for some time been controversial. Critical opinions have, on the one hand, been directed against the effort required, its duration and the concept behind these dissertations, while asserting, on the other hand, that such dissertations hinder studying and lead to unnecessary lengthening of the medical curriculum. Participants and method: In collaboration with the Medical School in Hanover a questionnaire was sent to all the 189 dissertationists of one year, to be returned anonymously. It contained 16 questions about the dissertation itself, supervision. time spent on it, total duration of medical course and effect of the dissertation on the individual's medical studies. The answers were evaluated statistically by explorative data analysis. Results: 181 questionnaires could be evaluated (96%). Average age of those questioned was 30.5 years, median duration of medical studies to-data was 13 semesters. For 80% it was the first attempted dissertation. 22% had been working on an entirely experimental topic (laboratory or animal experiments). The median time from starting to submitting the dissertation was 4 years, the median time of the experimental phase one year. Two-thirds of students said that work on the dissertation had not prolonged their studies. Supervision during various phases of the dissertation was overwhelmingly judged to have been >>very goods<< or >>good<<. Altogether 90% of dissertationists thought that it had been personally meaningful, and they would recommend it to younger costudents. Conclusions: The results of this study show that a universal criticism of medical dissertations does not stand up to detailed enquiry. Successful dissertationists highly rated their value both to themselves and to scientific medicine. The medical dissertation should therefore firmly remain as part of medical studies and of research within them.
