Dataset Information

Chinese Obstetrics & Gynecology journal club: a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To assess whether a journal club model could improve comprehension and written and spoken medical English in a population of Chinese medical professionals. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:The study population consisted of 52 medical professionals who were residents or postgraduate master or PhD students in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, China. INTERVENTION:After a three-part baseline examination to assess medical English comprehension, participants were randomised to either (1) an intensive journal club treatment arm or (2) a self-study group. At the conclusion of the 8-week intervention participants (n=52) were re-tested with new questions. OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was the change in score on a multiple choice examination. Secondary outcomes included change in scores on written and oral examinations which were modelled on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). RESULTS:Both groups had improved scores on the multiple choice examination without a statistically significant difference between them (90% power). However, there was a statistically significant difference between the groups in mean improvement in scores for both written (95% CI 1.1 to 5.0; p=0.003) and spoken English (95% CI 0.06 to 3.7; p=0.04) favouring the journal club intervention. CONCLUSIONS:Interacting with colleagues and an English-speaking facilitator in a journal club improved both written and spoken medical English in Chinese medical professionals. Journal clubs may be suitable for use as a self-sustainable teaching model to improve fluency in medical English in foreign medical professionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT01844609.

SUBMITTER: Tsui IK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4735128 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Chinese Obstetrics & Gynecology journal club: a randomised controlled trial.

Tsui Ilene K IK Dodson William C WC Kunselman Allen R AR Kuang Hongying H Han Feng-Juan FJ Legro Richard S RS Wu Xiao-Ke XK

BMJ open 20160128 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess whether a journal club model could improve comprehension and written and spoken medical English in a population of Chinese medical professionals.<h4>Setting and participants</h4>The study population consisted of 52 medical professionals who were residents or postgraduate master or PhD students in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, China.<h4>Intervention</h4>After a three-part baseline examination to assess medica ...[more]

PMID: 26823180

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Citation analysis is a bibliometric method that uses citation rates to evaluate research performance. This type of analysis can identify the articles that have shaped the modern history of obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN). Objectives:To identify and characterize top-cited OBGYN articles in the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science's Science Citation Index Expanded and to compare top-cited OBGYN articles published in specialty OBGYN journals with those published in nonspecialty journals. Design, Setting, and Participants:Cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of top-cited articles that were indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded from 1980 to 2018. The Science Citation Index Expanded was queried using search terms from the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology's 2018 certifying examination topics list. The top 100 articles from all journals and the top 100 articles from OBGYN journals were evaluated for specific characteristics. Data were analyzed in March 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:The articles were characterized by citation number, publication year, topic, study design, and authorship. After excluding articles that featured on both lists, top-cited articles were compared. Results:The query identified 3?767?874 articles, of which 278?846 (7.4%) were published in OBGYN journals. The top-cited article was published by Rossouw and colleagues in JAMA (2002). Top-cited articles published in nonspecialty journals were more frequently cited than those in OBGYN journals (median [interquartile range], 1738 [1490-2077] citations vs 666 [580-843] citations, respectively; P?<?.001) and were more likely to be randomized trials (25.0% vs 2.2%, respectively; difference, 22.8%; 95% CI, 13.5%-32.2%; P?<?.001). Whereas articles from nonspecialty journals focused on broad topics like osteoporosis, articles from OBGYN journal focused on topics like preeclampsia and endometriosis. Conclusions and Relevance:This study found substantial differences between top-cited OBGYN articles published in nonspecialty vs OBGYN journals. These differences may reflect the different goals of the journals, which work together to ensure optimal dissemination of impactful articles.

Project description:BackgroundIn the United States (US), many obstetrics & gynecology (OB-GYN) trainees feel unprepared to care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI) individuals, but interest in this topic is rising. Residency program websites are one way that directors can advertise whether this training is offered within their program. We aimed to describe the extent to which LGBTQI content is currently featured on OB-GYN residency websites across the country.MethodsWe identified all OB-GYN residency programs in the United States using a publicly available database. We systematically searched for select LGBTQI keywords on program websites. We collected data on mentions of LGBTQI didactics and rotations. We also searched whether LGTBQI keywords were included in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare the characteristics of programs that do and do not include this content. We used STATA SE Version 16.0 for all analyses and set the level of significance at 5%.ResultsWe included 287/295 US OB-GYN residency programs in our analysis (97.3%) and excluded 8 that did not have websites. We identified any LGBTQI content on 50 program websites (17.4%), and specific mention of didactics or rotations on 8 websites (2.8%). On multivariable analysis, programs in the West were more likely to include any LGBTQI content compared to programs in the South (OR 2.81, 95%CI 1.04-7.63), as were programs with 1 or 2 fellowships (OR 3.41, 95%CI 1.43-8.14) or 3 or more fellowships (OR 4.85, 95%CI 2.03-11.57) compared to those without fellowships. Programs in departments led by female chairs were also more likely to include LBTQI content (OR 3.18, 95%CI 1.55-6.51).ConclusionsAcademic programs, West Coast programs, and those with departments led by female chairs are more likely to mention LGBTQI keywords on their websites. Given the increasing interest in LGBTQI education for OB-GYN trainees, program directors should consider providing training opportunities and including this content on their websites.

Project description:IntroductionA journal club (JC) is a commonly used medical educational tool. Videoconferencing technology can facilitate the delivery of JCs, however, there remains no evidence on the role of web-based virtual JCs in promoting the acquisition and retention of medical knowledge. The Web-Ed trial aims to evaluate the educational benefits, feasibility and acceptability of web-based virtual JCs compared with traditional face-to-face ones.Methods and analysisWeb-Ed is a multicentre pragmatic parallel-group randomised trial across teaching hospitals within the UK National Health Service (NHS). We will enrol qualified doctors or medical students who are >18 years old, proficient in English and able to use online videoconferencing software. Block randomisation will be used to allocate participants in 1:1 ratio to either intervention group. Both groups will be presented with the same educational material and follow a standardised JC structure hosted by nominated moderators and medical faculty members.The primary outcome is the difference in participants' knowledge acquisition and retention 7 days after the JCs evaluated using standardised multiple-choice questions. We will report secondarily on the feasibility and acceptability of the JCs using Likert scale questionnaires. Assuming a 30% drop-out rate, we aim to enrol 75 participants to detect a 20% improvement in knowledge acquisition at 80% power and 5% significance. We will report using mean difference or risk ratio with 95% CIs and assess significance using parametric/non-parametric testing. Where relevant, we will adjust for predetermined characteristics (age, grade of training and session duration) using multivariate regression analyses.Ethics and disseminationWeb-Ed was designed by doctors in training to address their learning needs and evaluate the preferred mode of learning. The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant scientific conferences. The trial has been approved by the NHS Health Regulation Authority (21/HRA/3361).Trial registration numberISRCTN18036769.

Project description:ObjectiveRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the highest level of evidence to inform clinical practice. However, the reproducibility crisis has raised concerns about the scientific rigor of published RCT findings. Some advocate for a lower p-value threshold. We aimed to review published OB/Gyn topical RCTs in three representative OB/Gyn journals and three high impact non-OB/Gyn journals to determine if their interpretations would change with adoption of a p-value threshold for significance of 0.005. Secondarily, we evaluated if there were differences in methodologic characteristics between those that did and did not lose significance.Study designA manual search was performed to identify all OB/Gyn RCTs published in the selected journals between July 2017 and June 2019. Data were collected on primary outcome(s), methodology, and p-values. We determined the proportion of primary outcomes that would remain statistically significant with adoption of a p-value significance threshold of 0.005 versus be reinterpreted as "suggestive" (defined as p-value between 0.005 and 0.05). Chi-square or Fisher's exact test were used to compare study characteristics.ResultsOverall, 202 RCTs met inclusion criteria; 52% in obstetrics and 48% in gynecology. Of 90 studies considered significant with p <0.05 at the time of publication, 54.4% (n = 49) would maintain significant (p < 0.005), while 45.6% (n = 41) would become suggestive using the lower threshold. Most RCTs utilized a single (90.1%) versus composite (8.9%) primary outcome type, used an intent-to-treat analysis (73.3%), and studied a drug intervention (46.5%). Methodologically, 23.7% did not prespecify analysis type, 28.2% did not meet the pre-determined sample size, and 9.4% did not report an a priori sample size calculation. Studies maintaining significance were more likely to be international and report a funding source.ConclusionAdopting a p-value significance threshold of 0.005 would require reinterpretation of almost half of RCT results in the OB/Gyn literature. Highly variable methodological quality was identified.Key points· New p-value threshold results in reinterpretation of nearly half of RCT results in OB/Gyn literature.. · Highly variable methodological quality was identified.. · Reduced use of binary interpretations of significance is necessary..

Dataset Information

Chinese Obstetrics & Gynecology journal club: a randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Chinese Obstetrics & Gynecology journal club: a randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets