Dataset Information

Research activities and critical appraisal skills among Saudi orthopedic residents.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Medical research is a central part of any residency training. In view of the new Saudi orthopedic committee promotion regulation that mandates each resident to participate in a research project, the challenges that stand in the way of completion of substantial research within surgical residency must be investigated. The aim of this study was to assess the practice, attitudes, perception, and limitations associated with research among residents in the Saudi orthopedic program in the central region.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted between June and July 2020 using an online-based survey. The total number of study participants was 128 orthopedic residents out of the 191 residents enrolled in the central region program. Data were analyzed, and descriptive statistics in the form of frequency and percentage were determined, analytical tests were performed with P < 0.05 being statistically significant.

Results

Most residents (95 %) participated in a research project during residency. Most projects (53.10 %) were case reports followed by retrospective studies (48.40 %). The majority (79.70 %) did not attend a research methods course during residency. Experience in research differed significantly (P < 0.05) by age, residency year, and center. The mean involvement score was significantly higher among males at 3 (± 1) than among females at 2 (± 0) (P < 0.001). Only 40.60 % have access to orthopedic journals, and the same percentage (40.60 %) knew how to Critique original articles. There was a statistically significant difference in the accessibility score according to the training center. Lack of faculty support and mentorship were the main barriers to medical research at 62.50 and 39.10 %, respectively. A total of 68.80 % reported that funding was not available through their institutes.

Conclusions

In Saudi Arabia, the level of meaningful clinical research and publications by orthopedic residents is still low. The results of this study should be taken into consideration before the implementation of the new promotion criteria in the centers under the umbrella of Saudi orthopedic committee.

SUBMITTER: Al-Mohrej OA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8173921 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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/.

Project description:IntroductionCritical appraisal skills are believed to play a central role in an evidence-based approach to health practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and costs of a critical appraisal skills educational intervention aimed at health care professionals.MethodsThis prospective controlled trial randomized 145 self-selected general practitioners, hospital physicians, professions allied to medicine, and healthcare managers/administrators from the South West of England to a half-day critical appraisal skills training workshop (based on the model of problem-based small group learning) or waiting list control. The following outcomes were assessed at 6-months follow up: knowledge of the principles necessary for appraising evidence; attitudes towards the use of evidence about healthcare; evidence seeking behaviour; perceived confidence in appraising evidence; and ability to critically appraise a systematic review article.ResultsAt follow up overall knowledge score [mean difference: 2.6 (95% CI: 0.6 to 4.6)] and ability to appraise the results of a systematic review [mean difference: 1.2 (95% CI: 0.01 to 2.4)] were higher in the critical skills training group compared to control. No statistical significant differences in overall attitude towards evidence, evidence seeking behaviour, perceived confidence, and other areas of critical appraisal skills ability (methodology or generalizability) were observed between groups. Taking into account the workshop provision costs and costs of participants time and expenses of participants, the average cost of providing the critical appraisal workshops was approximately pound 250 per person.ConclusionsThe findings of this study challenge the policy of funding 'one-off' educational interventions aimed at enhancing the evidence-based practice of health care professionals. Future evaluations of evidence-based practice interventions need to take in account this trial's negative findings and methodological difficulties.

Project description:ImportanceVideo learning prior to surgery is common practice for trainees and surgeons, and immersive virtual reality (IVR) simulators are of increasing interest for surgical training. The training effectiveness of IVR compared with video training in complex skill acquisition should be studied.ObjectivesTo evaluate whether IVR improves learning effectiveness for surgical trainees and to validate a VR rating scale through correlation to real-world performance.Design, setting, and participantsThis block randomized, intervention-controlled clinical trial included senior (ie, postgraduate year 4 and 5) orthopedic surgery residents from multiple institutions in Canada during a single training course. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Data were collected from January 30 to February 1, 2020.InterventionAn IVR training platform providing a case-based module for reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for advanced rotator cuff tear arthropathy. Participants were permitted to repeat the module indefinitely.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measure was a validated performance metric for both the intervention and control groups (Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills [OSATS]). Secondary measures included transfer of training (ToT), transfer effectiveness ratio (TER), and cost-effectiveness (CER) ratios of IVR training compared with control. Additional secondary measures included IVR performance metrics measured on a novel rating scale compared with real-world performance.ResultsA total of 18 senior surgical residents participated; 9 (50%) were randomized to the IVR group and 9 (50%) to the control group. Participant demographic characteristics were not different for age (mean [SD] age: IVR group, 31.1 [2.8] years; control group, 31.0 [2.7] years), gender (IVR group, 8 [89%] men; control group, 6 [67%] men), surgical experience (mean [SD] experience with RSA: IVR group, 3.3 [0.9]; control group, 3.2 [0.4]), or prior simulator use (had experience: IVR group 6 [67%]; control group, 4 [44%]). The IVR group completed training 387% faster considering a single repetition (mean [SD] time for IVR group: 4.1 [2.5] minutes; mean [SD] time for control group: 16.1 [2.6] minutes; difference, 12.0 minutes; 95% CI, 8.8-14.0 minutes; P < .001). The IVR group had significantly better mean (SD) OSATS scores than the control group (15.9 [2.5] vs 9.4 [3.2]; difference, 6.9; 95% CI, 3.3-9.7; P < .001). The IVR group also demonstrated higher mean (SD) verbal questioning scores (4.1 [1.0] vs 2.2 [1.7]; difference, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.1-3.3; P = .03). The IVR score (ie, Precision Score) had a strong correlation to real-world OSATS scores (r = 0.74) and final implant position (r = 0.73). The ToT was 59.4%, based on the OSATS score. The TER was 0.79, and the system was 34 times more cost-effective than control, based on CER.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, surgical training with IVR demonstrated superior learning efficiency, knowledge, and skill transfer. The TER of 0.79 substituted for 47.4 minutes of operating room time when IVR was used for 60 minutes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04404010.