Dataset Information

Delineating the field of medical education: Bibliometric research approach(es).

ABSTRACT:

Background

The 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.

Process

In 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.

Pearls

As 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.

SUBMITTER: Maggio LA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9298433 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThis 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.MethodIn 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsThere 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.

Project description:BackgroundResearch abstracts are submitted for presentation at scientific conferences; however, criteria for judging abstracts are variable. We sought to develop two rigorous abstract scoring rubrics for education research submissions reporting (1) quantitative data and (2) qualitative data and then to collect validity evidence to support score interpretation.MethodsWe used a modified Delphi method to achieve expert consensus for scoring rubric items to optimize content validity. Eight education research experts participated in two separate modified Delphi processes, one to generate quantitative research items and one for qualitative. Modifications were made between rounds based on item scores and expert feedback. Homogeneity of ratings in the Delphi process was calculated using Cronbach's alpha, with increasing homogeneity considered an indication of consensus. Rubrics were piloted by scoring abstracts from 22 quantitative publications from AEM Education and Training "Critical Appraisal of Emergency Medicine Education Research" (11 highlighted for excellent methodology and 11 that were not) and 10 qualitative publications (five highlighted for excellent methodology and five that were not). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates of reliability were calculated.ResultsEach rubric required three rounds of a modified Delphi process. The resulting quantitative rubric contained nine items: quality of objectives, appropriateness of methods, outcomes, data analysis, generalizability, importance to medical education, innovation, quality of writing, and strength of conclusions (Cronbach's α for the third round = 0.922, ICC for total scores during piloting = 0.893). The resulting qualitative rubric contained seven items: quality of study aims, general methods, data collection, sampling, data analysis, writing quality, and strength of conclusions (Cronbach's α for the third round = 0.913, ICC for the total scores during piloting = 0.788).ConclusionWe developed scoring rubrics to assess quality in quantitative and qualitative medical education research abstracts to aid in selection for presentation at scientific meetings. Our tools demonstrated high reliability.

Project description:ObjectiveSubstandard and falsified (SF) medical products are a global public health threat. The presence and spread of SF drugs negatively affect (1) patients' safety and health outcomes, (2) national economy, (3) public trust in the healthcare system, and (4) the international fight against serious health challenges such as malaria and antimicrobial resistance. The objective of the current study was to investigate and provide a snapshot analysis of the evolution and developmental patterns of global research publications on SF products.MethodsA bibliometric approach was adopted using terms such as fake, falsified, counterfeit, substandard, and others. No language restriction was made. The study period was from 1900 up to 2020. The search strategy was validated and implemented using Scopus database.ResultsThe search strategy retrieved 978 documents authored by 2861 researchers from 100 different countries and published in 421 different journals. The retrieved documents received 11,237 citations (11.5 citations per document) with an H-index of 53. The 978 documents retrieved from Scopus were published from 1961 to 2020, giving an average of 16.6 publications per year. The present study indicated that research on SF medical products: (a) has experienced a steep growth from 2001 to 2012 followed by a steady-state growth; (b) was disseminated in a wide range of journals, mainly in the fields of the pharmaceutical industry, analytical chemistry, public health, infectious diseases, and internal medicine; (c) was published by scholars with diverse and distant geographical backgrounds; (d) was mainly produced in the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany; (d) has fragmented research networks and a limited number of researchers per network; (e) has limited cross-country collaboration except for that between the US and the UK in one hand and countries in the Mekong region in the other hand; (f) emphasized on medications related to malaria and sexual stimulants; and (g) received relatively inadequate funding.ConclusionsResearch on SF medical products is important and should remain a priority to ensure good quality of medications. Research activity in the field needs to be encouraged in world regions such as Africa and the Middle East where drug regulations are unsatisfactory and cross-border trade of illegal medications is common.

Project description:BackgroundSince the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, a great number of papers have been published in the pediatric field.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess research around the globe on COVID-19 in the pediatric field by bibliometric analysis, identifying publication trends and topic dissemination and showing the relevance of publishing authors, institutions, and countries.MethodsThe Scopus database was comprehensively searched for all indexed documents published between January 1, 2020, and June 11, 2020, dealing with COVID-19 in the pediatric population (0-18 years). A machine learning bibliometric methodology was applied to evaluate the total number of papers and citations, journal and publication types, the top productive institutions and countries and their scientific collaboration, and core keywords.ResultsA total of 2301 papers were retrieved, with an average of 4.8 citations per article. Of this, 1078 (46.9%) were research articles, 436 (18.9%) were reviews, 363 (15.8%) were letters, 186 (8.1%) were editorials, 7 (0.3%) were conference papers, and 231 (10%) were categorized as others. The studies were published in 969 different journals, headed by The Lancet. The retrieved papers were published by a total of 12,657 authors from 114 countries. The most productive countries were the United States, China, and Italy. The four main clusters of keywords were pathogenesis and clinical characteristics (keyword occurrences: n=2240), public health issues (n=352), mental health (n=82), and therapeutic aspects (n=70).ConclusionsIn the pediatric field, a large number of articles were published within a limited period on COVID-19, testifying to the rush to spread new findings on the topic in a timely manner. The leading authors, countries, and institutions evidently belonged to the most impacted geographical areas. A focus on the pediatric population was often included in general articles, and pediatric research about COVID-19 mainly focused on the clinical features, public health issues, and psychological impact of the disease.