Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
What Makes an Article a Must Read in Medical Education? Publisher Pubmed



Nakhostinansari A1 ; Mirabal SC2 ; Mendes TB3 ; Ma YE2 ; Saldanha Neves Horta Lima C4 ; Chapla K5 ; Reynolds S6 ; Oswalt H7 ; Wright SM2, 6 ; Tackett S2, 6
Authors
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. Sports Medicine Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  2. 2. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
  3. 3. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
  4. 4. School of Medicine of University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
  5. 5. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
  6. 6. Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, United States
  7. 7. Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Spartanburg, SC, United States

Source: BMC Medical Education Published:2024


Abstract

Background: The dissemination of published scholarship is intended to bring new evidence and ideas to a wide audience. However, the increasing number of articles makes it challenging to determine where to focus one’s attention. This study describes factors that may influence decisions to read and recommend a medical education article. Methods: Authors analyzed data collected from March 2021 through September 2022 during a monthly process to identify “Must Read” articles in medical education. An international team of health sciences educators, learners, and researchers voted on titles and abstracts to advance articles to full text review. Full texts were rated using five criteria: relevance, methodology, readability, originality, and whether it addressed a critical issue in medical education. At an end-of-month meeting, 3–4 articles were chosen by consensus as “Must Read” articles. Analyses were used to explore the associations of article characteristics and ratings with Must Read selection. Results: Over a period of 19 months, 7487 articles from 856 journals were screened, 207 (2.8%) full texts were evaluated, and 62 (0.8%) were chosen as Must Reads. During screening, 3976 articles (53.1%) received no votes. BMC Medical Education had the largest number of articles at screening (n = 1181, 15.8%). Academic Medicine had the largest number as Must Reads (n = 22, 35.5%). In logistic regressions adjusting for the effect of individual reviewers, all rating criteria were independently associated with selection as a Must Read (p < 0.05), with methodology (OR 1.44 (95%CI = 1.23–1.69) and relevance (OR 1.43 (95%CI = 1.20–1.70)) having the highest odds ratios. Conclusions: Over half of the published medical education articles did not appeal to a diverse group of potential readers; this represents a missed opportunity to make an impact and potentially wasted effort. Our findings suggest opportunities to enhance value in the production and dissemination of medical education scholarship. © The Author(s) 2024.
Related Docs
1. Investigating the Advantages and Disadvantages of Electronic Logbooks for Education Goals Promotion in Medical Sciences Students: A Systematic Review, Health Science Reports (2023)