Knowledge syntheses in medical education: A bibliometric analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
This bibliometric analysis maps the landscape of knowledge syntheses in medical education. It provides scholars with a roadmap for understanding where the field has been and where it might go in the future, thereby informing research and educational practice. In particular, this analysis details the venues in which knowledge syntheses are published, the types of syntheses conducted, citation rates they produce, and altmetric attention they garner.Method
In 2020, the authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of knowledge syntheses published in 14 core medical education journals from 1999 to 2019. To characterize the studies, metadata were extracted from PubMed, Web of Science, Altmetrics Explorer, and Unpaywall.Results
The authors analyzed 963 knowledge syntheses representing 3.1% of the total articles published (n = 30,597). On average, 45.9 knowledge syntheses were published annually (SD = 35.85, median = 33), and there was an overall 2620% increase in the number of knowledge syntheses published from 1999 to 2019. The journals each published, on average, a total of 68.8 knowledge syntheses (SD = 67.2, median = 41) with Medical Education publishing the most (n = 189; 19%). Twenty-one types of knowledge synthesis were identified, the most prevalent being systematic reviews (n = 341; 35.4%) and scoping reviews (n = 88; 9.1%). Knowledge syntheses were cited an average of 53.80 times (SD = 107.12, median = 19) and received a mean Altmetric Attention Score of 14.12 (SD = 37.59, median = 6).Conclusions
There has been considerable growth in knowledge syntheses in medical education over the past 20 years, contributing to medical education's evidence base. Beyond this increase in volume, researchers have introduced methodological diversity in these publications, and the community has taken to social media to share knowledge syntheses. Implications for the field, including the impact of synthesis types and their relationship to knowledge translation, are discussed.
SUBMITTER: Maggio LA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7580500 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionAuthors of knowledge syntheses make many subjective decisions during their review process. Those decisions, which are guided in part by author characteristics, can impact the conduct and conclusions of knowledge syntheses, which assimilate much of the evidence base in medical education. To better understand the evidence base, this study describes the characteristics of knowledge synthesis authors, focusing on gender, geography, and institution.MethodsIn 2020, the authors conducted meta-research to examine authors of 963 knowledge syntheses published between 1999 and 2019 in 14 core medical education journals.ResultsThe authors identified 4,110 manuscript authors across all authorship positions. On average there were 4.3 authors per knowledge synthesis (SD = 2.51, Median = 4, Range = 1-22); 79 knowledge syntheses (8%) were single-author publications. Over time, the average number of authors per synthesis increased (M = 1.80 in 1999; M = 5.34 in 2019). Knowledge syntheses were authored by slightly more females (n = 2047; 50.5%) than males (n = 2005; 49.5%) across all author positions. Authors listed affiliations in 58 countries, and 58 knowledge syntheses (6%) included authors from low- or middle-income countries. Authors from the United States (n = 366; 38%), Canada (n = 233; 24%), and the United Kingdom (n = 180; 19%) published the most knowledge syntheses. Authors listed affiliation at 617 unique institutions, and first authors represented 362 unique institutions with greatest representation from University of Toronto (n = 55, 6%). Across all authorship positions, the large majority of knowledge syntheses (n = 753; 78%) included authors from institutions ranked in the top 200 globally.ConclusionKnowledge synthesis author teams have grown over the past 20 years, and while there is near gender parity across all author positions, authorship has been dominated by North American researchers located at highly ranked institutions. This suggests a potential overrepresentation of certain authors with particular characteristics, which may impact the conduct and conclusions of medical education knowledge syntheses.
| S-EPMC8547645 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe field of medical education remains poorly delineated such that there is no broad consensus of articles or journals that comprise 'the field'. This lack of consensus indicates a missed opportunity for researchers to generate insights about the field that could facilitate conducting bibliometric studies and other research designs (e.g., systematic reviews) and also enable individuals to identify themselves as 'medical education researchers'. Other fields have utilised bibliometric field delineation, which is the assigning of articles or journals to a certain field in an effort to define that field.ProcessIn this Research Approach, three bibliometric field delineation approaches-information retrieval, core journals, and journal co-citation-are introduced. For each approach, the authors describe attempts to apply it in medical education and identify related strengths and weaknesses. Based on co-citation, the authors propose the Medical Education Journal List 24 (MEJ-24), as a starting point for delineating medical education and invite the community to collaborate on improving and potentially expanding this list.PearlsAs a research approach, field delineation is complicated, and there is no clear best way to delineate the field of medical education. However, recent advances in information science provide potentially fruitful approaches to deal with the field's complexity. When considering these approaches, researchers should consider collaborating with bibliometricians. Bibliometric approaches rely on available metadata for articles and journals, which necessitates that researchers examine the metadata prior to analysis to understand its strengths and weaknesses, and to assess how this might affect data interpretation. While using bibliometric approaches for field delineation is valuable, it is important to remember that these techniques are only as good as the research team's interpretation of the data, which suggests that an expanded approach is needed to better delineate medical education, an approach that includes active discussion within the medical education community.
| S-EPMC9298433 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Assessment in Medical Education fills many roles and is under constant scrutiny. Assessments must be of good quality, and supported by validity evidence. Given the high-stakes consequences of assessment, and the many audiences within medical education (e. g., training level, specialty-specific), we set out to document the breadth, scope, and characteristics of the literature reporting on validation of assessments within medical education. METHOD:Searches in Medline (Ovid), Web of Science, ERIC, EMBASE (Ovid), and PsycINFO (Ovid) identified articles reporting on assessment of learners in medical education published since 1999. Included articles were coded for geographic origin, journal, journal category, targeted assessment, and authors. A map of collaborations between prolific authors was generated. RESULTS:A total of 2,863 articles were included. The majority of articles were from the United States, with Canada producing the most articles per medical school. Most articles were published in journals with medical categorizations (73.1% of articles), but Medical Education was the most represented journal (7.4% of articles). Articles reported on a variety of assessment tools and approaches, and 89 prolific authors were identified, with a total of 228 collaborative links. DISCUSSION:Literature reporting on validation of assessments in medical education is heterogeneous. Literature is produced by a broad array of authors and collaborative networks, reported to a broad audience, and is primarily generated in North American and European contexts. Our findings speak to the heterogeneity of the medical education literature on assessment validation, and suggest that this heterogeneity may stem, at least in part, from differences in constructs measured, assessment purposes, or conceptualizations of validity.
| S-EPMC6002290 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patient safety is a new and challenging discipline in the Iranian health care industry. Among the challenges for patient safety improvement, education of medical and paramedical students is intimidating. The present study was designed to assess students' perceptions of patient safety, and their knowledge and attitudes to patient safety education. This cross-sectional analytical study was conducted in 2012 at Urmia University of Medical Sciences, West Azerbaijan province, Iran. 134 students studying medicine, nursing, and midwifery were recruited through census for the study. A questionnaire was used for collecting data, which were then analyzed through SPSS statistical software (version 16.0), using Chi-square test, Spearman correlation coefficient, F and LSD tests. A total of 121 questionnaires were completed, and 50% of the students demonstrated good knowledge about patient safety. The relationships between students' attitudes to patient safety and years of study, sex and course were significant (0.003, 0.001 and 0.017, respectively). F and LSD tests indicated that regarding the difference between the mean scores of perceptions of patient safety and attitudes to patient safety education, there was a significant difference among medical and nursing/midwifery students. Little knowledge of students regarding patient safety indicates the inefficiency of informal education to fill the gap; therefore, it is recommended to consider patient safety in the curriculums of all medical and paramedical sciences and formulate better policies for patient safety.
| S-EPMC4554725 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThis study aims to identify the characteristics and future directions of online medical education in the context of the novel coronavirus outbreak new through visual analytics using CiteSpace and VOSviewer bibliometric methods.MethodFrom Web of Science, we searched for articles published between 2020 and 2022 using the terms online education, medical education and COVID-19, ended up with 2555 eligible papers, and the articles published between 2010 and 2019 using the terms online education, medical education and COVID-19, and we ended up with 4313 eligible papers.ResultsBefore the COVID-19 outbreak, Medical students and care were the most frequent keywords and the most cited author was BRENT THOMA with 18 times. The United States is the country with the greatest involvement and research impact in the field of online medical education. The most cited journal is ACAD MED with 1326 citations. After the COVID-19 outbreak, a surge in the number of research results in related fields, and ANXIETY and four secondary keywords were identified. In addition, the concentration of authors of these publications in the USA and China is a strong indication that local epidemics and communication technologies have influenced the development of online medical education research. Regarding the centrality of research institutions, the most influential co-author network is Harvard Medical School in the United States; and regarding the centrality of references, the most representative journal to which it belongs is VACCINE.ConclusionThis study found that hey information such as keywords, major institutions and authors, and countries differ in the papers before and after the COVID-19 outbreak. The novel coronavirus outbreak had a significant impact on the online education aspect. For non-medical and medical students, the pandemic has led to home isolation, making it difficult to offer face-to-face classes such as laboratory operations. Students have lost urgency and control over the specifics of face-to-face instruction, which has reduced the quality of teaching. Therefore, we should improve our education model according to the actual situation to ensure the quality of teaching while taking into account the physical and psychological health of students.
| S-EPMC10067015 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of state continuing medical education (CME) requirements on physician clinical knowledge.Data sourcesSecondary data for 19,563 general internists who took the Internal Medicine Maintenance of Certification (MOC) examination between 2006 and 2013.Study designWe took advantage of a natural experiment resulting from variations in CME requirements across states over time and applied a difference-in-differences methodology to measure associations between changes in CME requirements and physician clinical knowledge. We measured changes in clinical knowledge by comparing initial and MOC examination performance 10 years apart. We constructed difference-in-differences estimates by regressing examination performance changes against physician demographics, county and year fixed effects, trend-state indicators, and state CME change indicators.Data collectionPhysician data were compiled by the American Board of Internal Medicine. State CME policies were compiled from American Medical Association reports.Principal findingsMore rigorous CME credit-hour requirements (mostly implementing a new requirement) were associated with an increase in examination performance equivalent to a shift in examination score from the 50th to 54th percentile.ConclusionsAmong physicians required to engage in a summative assessment of their clinical knowledge, CME requirements were associated with an improvement in physician clinical knowledge.
| S-EPMC5980292 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveMulticriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a useful tool in complex decision-making situations, and has been used in medical fields to evaluate treatment options and drug selection. This study aims to provide valuable insights into MCDA in healthcare through examining the research focus of existing studies, major fields, major applications, most productive authors and countries, and most common journals in the domain.MethodsA bibliometric analysis was conducted on the publication related to MCDA in healthcare from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database on 14 July 2021. Three bibliometric software (VOSviewer, R-bibliometrix, and CiteSpace) were used to conduct the analysis including years, countries, institutes, authors, journals, co-citation references, and keywords.ResultsA total of 410 publications were identified with an average yearly growth rate of 32% (1999-2021), from 196 academic journals with 23,637 co-citation references by 871 institutions from 70 countries/regions. The United States was the most productive country (n = 80). Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (n = 16), Université de Montréal (n = 13), and Syreon Research Institute (n = 12) were the top productive institutions. A A Zaidan, Mireille Goetghebeur and Zoltan Kalo were the biggest nodes in every cluster of authors' networks. The top journals in terms of the number of articles (n = 17) and citations (n = 1,673) were Value in Health and Journal of Medical Systems, respectively. The extant literature has focused on four aspects, including the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), decision-making, health technology assessment, and healthcare waste management. COVID-19 and fuzzy TOPSIS received careful attention from MCDA applications recently. MCDA in big data, telemedicine, TOPSIS, and fuzzy AHP is well-developed and an important theme, which may be the trend in future research.ConclusionThis study uncovers a holistic picture of the performance of MCDA-related literature published in healthcare. MCDA has a broad application on different topics and would be helpful for practitioners, researchers, and decision-makers working in healthcare to advance the wheel of medical complex decision-making. It can be argued that the door is still open for improving the role of MCDA in healthcare, whether in its methodology (e.g., fuzzy TOPSIS) or application (e.g., telemedicine).
| S-EPMC9218106 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo identify the cooperation and impact of authors, countries, institutions, and journals, evaluate the knowledge base, find the hotspot trends, and detect the emerging topics regarding ferroptosis research.MethodsThe articles and reviews related to ferroptosis were obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection on November 1, 2020. Two scientometric software (CiteSpace 5.7 and VOSviewer 1.6.15) were used to perform bibliometric and knowledge-map analysis.ResultsA total of 1,267 papers were included, in 466 academic journals by 6,867 authors in 438 institutions from 61 countries/regions. The ferroptosis-related publications were increasing rapidly. Cell Death & Disease published the most papers on ferroptosis, while Cell was the top co-cited journal, publication journals and co-cited journals were major in the molecular and biology fields. The United States and China were the most productive countries; meanwhile, the University of Pittsburgh, Columbia University and Guangzhou Medical University were the most active institutions. Brent R Stockwell published the most papers, while Scott J Dixon had the most co-citations; simultaneously, active cooperation existed in ferroptosis researchers. Ten references on reviews, mechanisms, and diseases were regarded as the knowledge base. Five main aspects of ferroptosis research included regulation mechanisms, nervous system injury, cancer, relationships with other types of cell death, and lipid peroxidation. The latest hotspots were nanoparticle, cancer therapy, iron metabolism, and in-depth mechanism. Notably Nrf2 might have turning significance. The emerging topics on ferroptosis research were the further molecular mechanism of ferroptosis and the wider application of ferroptosis-related disease with advanced technology.ConclusionThis study performed a full overview of the ferroptosis research using bibliometric and visual methods. The information would provide helpful references for scholars focusing on ferroptosis.
| S-EPMC8209495 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSpaced education is a novel method that improves medical education through online repetition of core principles often paired with multiple-choice questions. This model is a proven teaching tool for medical students, but its effect on resident learning is less established. We hypothesized that repetition of key clinical concepts in a "Clinical Pearls" format would improve knowledge retention in medical residents.MethodsThis study investigated spaced education with particular emphasis on using a novel, email-based reinforcement program, and a randomized, self-matched design, in which residents were quizzed on medical knowledge that was either reinforced or not with electronically-administered spaced education. Both reinforced and non-reinforced knowledge was later tested with four quizzes.ResultsOverall, respondents incorrectly answered 395 of 1008 questions (0.39; 95% CI, 0.36-0.42). Incorrect response rates varied by quiz (range 0.34-0.49; p = 0.02), but not significantly by post-graduate year (PGY1 0.44, PGY2 0.33, PGY3 0.38; p = 0.08). Although there was no evidence of benefit among residents (RR = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.83-1.22; p = 0.95), we observed a significantly lower risk of incorrect responses to reinforced material among interns (RR = 0.83, 95% CI, 0.70-0.99, p = 0.04).ConclusionsOverall, repetition of Clinical Pearls did not statistically improve test scores amongst junior and senior residents. However, among interns, repetition of the Clinical Pearls was associated with significantly higher test scores, perhaps reflecting their greater attendance at didactic sessions and engagement with Clinical Pearls. Although the study was limited by a low response rate, we employed test and control questions within the same quiz, limiting the potential for selection bias. Further work is needed to determine the optimal spacing and content load of Clinical Pearls to maximize retention amongst medical residents. This particular protocol of spaced education, however, was unique and readily reproducible suggesting its potential efficacy for intern education within a large residency program.
| S-EPMC5536283 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe medical education research field operates at the crossroads of two distinct academic worlds: higher education and medicine. As such, this field provides a unique opportunity to explore new forms of cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange.MethodsCross-disciplinary knowledge flow in medical education research was examined by looking at citation patterns in the five journals with the highest impact factor in 2017. To grasp the specificities of the knowledge flow in medical education, the field of higher education was used as a comparator. In total, 2031 citations from 64 medical education and 41 higher education articles published in 2017 were examined.ResultsMedical education researchers draw on a narrower range of knowledge communities than their peers in higher education. Medical education researchers predominantly cite articles published in health and medical education journals (80% of all citations), and to a lesser extent, articles published in education and social science journals. In higher education, while the largest share of the cited literature is internal to the domain (36%), researchers cite literature from across the social science spectrum. Findings suggest that higher education scholars engage in conversations with academics from a broader range of communities and perspectives than their medical education colleagues.DiscussionUsing Pierre Bourdieu's concepts of doxa and field, it is argued that the variety of epistemic cultures entering the higher education research space contributes to its interdisciplinary nature. Conversely, the existence of a relatively homogeneous epistemic culture in medicine potentially impedes cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange.
| S-EPMC9240116 | biostudies-literature