Critical Appraisal of Emergency Medicine Educational Research: The Best Publications of 2016.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Dubosh NM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6339548 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Critical Appraisal of Emergency Medicine Educational Research: The Best Publications of 2016.
Dubosh Nicole M NM Jordan Jaime J Yarris Lalena M LM Ullman Edward E Kornegay Joshua J Runde Daniel D Juve Amy Miller AM Fisher Jonathan J
AEM education and training 20181214 1
<h4>Objectives</h4>The objectives were to critically appraise the emergency medicine (EM) medical education literature published in 2016 and review the highest-quality quantitative and qualitative studies.<h4>Methods</h4>A search of the English language literature in 2016 querying MEDLINE, Scopus, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and PsychInfo identified 510 papers related to medical education in EM. Two reviewers independently screened all of the publications using previously esta ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and Aim:The nonsatisfaction among emergency medicine specialty trainees is an underrated issue in Turkey. Several previous studies have evaluated the burn-out and its consequences among physicians, but there is no study conducted with specialty trainees. The aim of this study is to evaluate the reasons for resignation among emergency medicine specialty residents in Turkey. Method:A total of 41 participants, who resigned from emergency medicine residency, were contacted by phone and invited to complete an online survey that included 25 questions about personal characteristics and departmental information. Results:Most frequent reasons of resignation were violence/security concerns (63.4%), busy work environment (53.7%), and mobbing (26.8%). Participants who reported that they have resigned due to inadequate training were mostly over 30 years old (p=0.02), continued more than 6 months to EMST (p<0.001), reported that there was no regular rotation program (p=0.003) or access to full-text scientific journals (p=0.045) in their department. All participants thought that there were deficits in the training programs, and none of them declared regret for resigning. Twenty-eight participants (68.2%) continued their specialty training at a different discipline after resignation. Conclusion:Major barriers against a high-quality and sustainable emergency medicine residency are violence in emergency services, mobbing in academic or administrative bodies, and inaccessibility to scientific resources. These obstacles can only be removed by cooperation of multiple institutions in Turkey.
| S-EPMC6398009 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIn the emergency department (ED), critical events, including death and severe illness, are not uncommon. Critical events involving children, while less frequent, may be especially distressing. Debriefing following a critical event may serve several purposes: review of team performance, education, identification of errors, emotional support, and planning for future events. Debriefing skills and habits learned during training may be carried forward throughout an emergency physician's career. This study evaluates how educators in emergency medicine (EM) view debriefing after pediatric critical events and identifies barriers to use of debriefing in postgraduate training programs.MethodsIn this cross-sectional observational study, we surveyed program directors (PDs) from EM residency and pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) fellowship programs via e-mail listserv. A panel of PEM experts and survey methodologists designed the survey, which was reviewed for content validity by an independent panel of EM educators. We obtained data on current debriefing practices following pediatric critical events, PDs' perceptions of ideal debriefing practices, and barriers to implementation. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.ResultsA total of 109 PDs completed the survey (45% overall response rate). All respondents feel that debriefing pediatric critical events is useful. The majority of debriefings are initiated and led by emergency physicians as informal meetings shortly following a critical event. Debriefings are most commonly held following a patient death, although PDs feel that debriefings should also occur for other specific patient scenarios (e.g., child abuse). Barriers to debriefing include timing, scheduling, location, discomfort with debriefing, participant buy-in, and leader buy-in.ConclusionsProgram leaders in both EM and PEM believe that debriefing after pediatric critical events is important for training. Barriers to debriefing specific to the ED setting should be explored to optimize the implementation of this practice.
| S-EPMC6001495 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWe aimed to assess the reproducibility of empirical research by determining the availability of components required for replication of a study, including materials, raw data, analysis scripts, protocols, and preregistration.MethodsWe used the National Library of Medicine catalog to identify MEDLINE-indexed emergency medicine (EM) journals. Thirty journals met the inclusion criteria. From January 1, 2014-December 31, 2018, 300 publications were randomly sampled using a PubMed search. Additionally, we included four high-impact general medicine journals, which added 106 publications. Two investigators were blinded for independent extraction. Extracted data included statements regarding the availability of materials, data, analysis scripts, protocols, and registration.ResultsAfter the search, we found 25,473 articles, from which we randomly selected 300. Of the 300, only 287 articles met the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we added 106 publications from high-impact journals of which 77 met the inclusion criteria. Together, 364 publications were included, of which 212 articles contained empirical data to analyze. Of the eligible empirical articles, 2.49%, (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33% to 4.64%] provided a material statement, 9.91% (95% CI, 5.88% to 13.93%) provided a data statement, 0 provided access to analysis scripts, 25.94% (95% CI, 20.04% to 31.84%) linked the protocol, and 39.15% (95% CI, 32.58% to 45.72%) were preregistered.ConclusionStudies in EM lack indicators required for reproducibility. The majority of studies fail to report factors needed to reproduce research to ensure credibility. Thus, an intervention is required and can be achieved through the collaboration of researchers, peer reviewers, funding agencies, and journals.
| S-EPMC8328179 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesProcedural competency is an essential prerequisite for the independent practice of emergency medicine. Multiple studies demonstrate that simulation-based procedural training (SBPT) is an effective method for acquiring and maintaining procedural competency and preferred over traditional paradigms ("see one, do one, teach one"). Although newer paradigms informing SBPT have emerged, educators often face circumstances that challenge and undermine their implementation. The goal of this paper is to identify and report on best practices and theory-supported solutions to some of these challenges as derived using a process of expert consensus building and reviews of the existing literature on SBPT.MethodsThe Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Simulation Academy SBPT Workgroup convened approximately 8 months prior to the 2019 SAEM Annual Meeting to perform a review of the literature and participate in a consensus-building process to identify solutions (in the form of best practices and educational theory) to these challenges faced by educators engaging in SBPT.Results and analysisThirteen distinct educational challenges to SBPT emerged from the expert group's primary literature reviews and consensus-building processes. Three domains emerged upon further analysis of the 13 challenges: learner, educator, and curriculum. Six challenges within the "learner" domain were selected for comprehensive discussion in this paper, as they were deemed representative of the most common and most significant threats to ideal SBPT. Each of the six challenges aligns with one of the following themes: 1) maximizing active learning, 2) maintaining learner engagement, 3) embracing learner diversity, 4) optimizing cognitive load, 5) promoting mindfulness and reflection, and 6) emphasizing deliberate practice for mastery learning. Over 20 "special treatments" for mitigating the impact of the 13 challenges were derived from the secondary literature search and consensus-building process prior to and during the preconference workshop; 11 of these that best address the six learner-centered challenges are explored, including implications for educators involved in SBPT.Conclusions/implications for educatorsWe propose multiple consensus-generated solutions (in the form of best practices and applied educational theory) that we believe are suitable and well aligned to overcome commonly encountered learner-centered challenges and threats to optimal SBPT.
| S-EPMC7011411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConcerns about rising health care costs require rigorous economic study to inform clinical and policy decision-making. Micro-costing is a cost estimation methodology employing detailed resource utilization and unit cost data to generate precise estimates of economic costs. Micro-costing studies have not been critically appraised.MethodsCritical appraisal of micro-costing studies in English. Studies fully or predominantly employing micro-costing were appraised for methodological and reporting quality through economic evaluation guidelines (Evers, Drummond, Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), Fukuda and Imanaka checklists). Following the Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, micro-costing studies were defined as involving "direct enumeration and costing out of every input consumed in the treatment of a particular patient."ResultsFull or predominant micro-costing studies included neoplasms (18.5%), infectious and parasitic diseases (17.9%), and diseases of circulatory systems (10.8%) as the most studied diseases. 36.9% were in the United States and 34.9% were in Europe. 33.8% did not report analytic perspective, 32.8% did not report price year, 3.6% did not inflation adjust cost data, and 44.1% did not specify inflation adjustment. 86.2% did not separately report unit costs and resource utilization quantity, 14.9 and 19.5% did not provide sufficient detail to assess appropriateness of measured physical units or valued costs.ConclusionsMicro-costing studies vary widely in methodological and reporting quality, highlighting the need to standardize methods and reporting of micro-costing studies and develop tools for their evaluation.
| S-EPMC7789519 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Scientific conferences, a major feature of academic life, rarely provide the opportunity for self-appraisal of a research field. During a 2007 meeting on leishmaniasis research in the postgenomic era, approximately 60 researchers participated in group discussions that aimed to provide a critical self-appraisal of the state of the field and to highlight major roadblocks that are likely to prevent the translation of new research into tools for leishmaniasis control. These discussions demonstrated a surprising concordance of views and highlighted several crucial areas for future development.
| S-EPMC2817896 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSince the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, a large number of COVID-19-related papers have been published. However, concerns about the risk of expedited science have been raised. We aimed at reviewing and categorizing COVID-19-related medical research and to critically appraise peer-reviewed original articles.MethodsThe data sources were Pubmed, Cochrane COVID-19 register study, arXiv, medRxiv and bioRxiv, from 01/11/2019 to 01/05/2020. Peer-reviewed and preprints publications related to COVID-19 were included, written in English or Chinese. No limitations were placed on study design. Reviewers screened and categorized studies according to i) publication type, ii) country of publication, and iii) topics covered. Original articles were critically appraised using validated quality assessment tools.ResultsAmong the 11,452 publications identified, 10,516 met the inclusion criteria, among which 7468 (71.0%) were peer-reviewed articles. Among these, 4190 publications (56.1%) did not include any data or analytics (comprising expert opinion pieces). Overall, the most represented topics were infectious disease (n = 2326, 22.1%), epidemiology (n = 1802, 17.1%), and global health (n = 1602, 15.2%). The top five publishing countries were China (25.8%), United States (22.3%), United Kingdom (8.8%), Italy (8.1%) and India (3.4%). The dynamic of publication showed that the exponential growth of COVID-19 peer-reviewed articles was mainly driven by publications without original data (mean 261.5 articles ± 51.1 per week) as compared with original articles (mean of 69.3 ± 22.3 articles per week). Original articles including patient data accounted for 713 (9.5%) of peer-reviewed studies. A total of 576 original articles (80.8%) showed intermediate to high risk of bias. Last, except for simulation studies that mainly used large-scale open data, the median number of patients enrolled was of 102 (IQR = 37-337).ConclusionsSince the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of research is composed by publications without original data. Peer-reviewed original articles with data showed a high risk of bias and included a limited number of patients. Together, these findings underscore the urgent need to strike a balance between the velocity and quality of research, and to cautiously consider medical information and clinical applicability in a pressing, pandemic context. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/5zjyx/.
| S-EPMC7780085 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSocial media is increasingly used in the dissemination of medical research. Traditional measures of the impact of a paper do not account for this. Altmetrics are a measure of the dissemination of a publication via social media websites. The purpose of this study is to ascertain if the altmetric attention score of an article is a reliable measure of the impact it has in the field of critical care medicine. To this end, we investigated if a correlation exists between future citation count and altmetric attention score.MethodsThe top nine journals by impact factor in the field of critical care medicine were identified for 2014 and 2015. The 100 most cited articles from these journals were recorded to form the Scientific Impact Group, i.e. those with the greatest impact on the scientific community. The altmetric attention score was recorded for each article. The top 100 articles by altmetric attention score were also identified to form the Media Impact Group, i.e. those that generated the most online attention. Their citation counts' were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed on each group to identify a correlation between altmetric attention score and citation count.ResultsThere was a moderately positive correlation in the Scientific Impact Group, with a Spearman r score of 0.4336 (P = 0.0001). A weakly positive correlation was found in the Media Impact Group, with a Spearman r score of 0.3033 (P = 0.002).ConclusionsThere is a positive correlation between traditional bibliographic metrics and altmetrics in the field of critical care medicine. Highly cited papers are more likely to generate online attention. However, papers that generate a lot of online attention are less likely to have a high citation count. Therefore, altmetric attention score is not a reliable predictor of future citation count in critical care medicine.
| S-EPMC7890758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been published by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) since 1990 to advance evidence-based emergency care. ACEP clinical policies have drawn anecdotal criticism for bias, yet the overall quality of these guidelines has not previously been quantified. We sought to examine ACEP clinical policies using a recognised, validated appraisal instrument: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II). METHODS:Systematic assessment of current ACEP clinical policies was conducted using the AGREE II instrument, which contains 23 appraisal items (scored on a 1-7 scale) in six domains and two overall assessments. Each policy was independently appraised by five trained appraisers. Primary outcomes were AGREE II ratings for each item, domain and "Overall Assessment," and scores were reported as standardised percentages from all five appraisers. Secondary analyses examined associations between AGREE II ratings and policy publication date, strength of underlying evidence and strength of recommendations. Additional analysis examined relationships between domain and "Overall Assessment" ratings. RESULTS:Twenty guidelines published from April 2007 to November 2017 were included. Of the six domains, "Scope and Purpose" scored highest (mean 90%) and "Applicability" scored lowest (mean 35%). The four remaining domains ("Stakeholder Involvement," "Rigor of Development," "Clarity of Presentation" and "Editorial Independence") had mean scores of 53%-78%. The mean "Overall Assessment" rating was 69% and was not associated with policy publication date, strength of underlying evidence or strength of recommendations. We found positive associations between "Overall Assessment" ratings and two domains: "Rigor of Development" (r = 0.70) and "Clarity of Presentation" (r = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS:Based on validated AGREE II criteria, ACEP clinical policies can be most improved by addressing their application in practice. ACEP clinical policies' overall quality did not improve over the assessed time period and is not explained by the quality of underlying evidence.
| S-EPMC6351191 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Factors predictive of research career interest among pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) fellows are not known. We sought to determine the prevalence and determinants of interest in research careers among PEM fellows.We performed an electronically distributed national survey of current PEM fellows. We assessed demographics, barriers to successful research, and beliefs about research using 4-point ordinal scales. The primary outcome was the fellow-reported predicted percentage of time devoted to clinical research 5 years after graduation. We measured the association between barriers and beliefs and the predicted future clinical research time using the Spearman correlation coefficient.Of 458 current fellows, 231 (50.4%) submitted complete responses to the survey. The median predicted future clinical research time was 10% (interquartile range, 5%-20%). We identified no association between sex, residency type, and previous research exposure and predicted future research time. The barrier that most correlated with decreased predicted clinical research time was difficulty designing a feasible fellowship research project (Spearman coefficient [?], 0.20; P = 0.002). The belief that most correlated with increased predicted clinical research time was excitement about research (? = 0.69, P < 0.001).Most fellows expect to devote a minority of their career to clinical research. Excitement about research was strongly correlated with career research interest.
| S-EPMC5597450 | biostudies-other