Cargando…

Quality of randomised controlled trials in medical education reported between 2012 and 2013: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION: Research in medical education has increased in volume over the past decades but concerns have been raised regarding the quality of trials conducted within this field. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving educational interventions that are reported in biomedical journals have b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tolsgaard, Martin G, Ku, Cheryl, Woods, Nicole N, Kulasegaram, Kulamakan Mahan, Brydges, Ryan, Ringsted, Charlotte
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4120313/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25079932
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005155
_version_ 1782329065408036864
author Tolsgaard, Martin G
Ku, Cheryl
Woods, Nicole N
Kulasegaram, Kulamakan Mahan
Brydges, Ryan
Ringsted, Charlotte
author_facet Tolsgaard, Martin G
Ku, Cheryl
Woods, Nicole N
Kulasegaram, Kulamakan Mahan
Brydges, Ryan
Ringsted, Charlotte
author_sort Tolsgaard, Martin G
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Research in medical education has increased in volume over the past decades but concerns have been raised regarding the quality of trials conducted within this field. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving educational interventions that are reported in biomedical journals have been criticised for their insufficient conceptual, theoretical framework. RCTs published in journals dedicated to medical education, on the other hand, have been questioned regarding their methodological rigour. The aim of this study is therefore to assess the quality of RCTs of educational interventions reported in 2012 and 2013 in journals dedicated to medical education compared to biomedical journals with respect to objective quality criteria. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: RCTs published between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2013 in English are included. The search strategy is developed with the help of experienced librarians to search online databases for key terms. All of the identified RCTs are screened based on their titles and abstracts individually by the authors and then compared in pairs to assess agreement. Data are extracted from the included RCTs by independently scoring each RCT using a data collection form. The data collection form consists of four steps. Step 1 includes confirmation of RCT eligibility; step 2 consists of the CONSORT checklist; step 3 consists of the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument framework; step 4 consists of a Medical Education Extension (MEdEx) to the CONSORT checklist. The MEdEx includes the following elements: Description of scientific background, explanation of rationale, quality of research questions and hypotheses, clarity in the description of the use of the intervention and control as well as interpretation of results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review is the first to systematically examine the quality of RCTs conducted in medical education. We plan to disseminate the results through publications and presentation at relevant conferences. Ethical approval is not sought for this review.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4120313
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41203132014-08-05 Quality of randomised controlled trials in medical education reported between 2012 and 2013: a systematic review protocol Tolsgaard, Martin G Ku, Cheryl Woods, Nicole N Kulasegaram, Kulamakan Mahan Brydges, Ryan Ringsted, Charlotte BMJ Open Medical Education and Training INTRODUCTION: Research in medical education has increased in volume over the past decades but concerns have been raised regarding the quality of trials conducted within this field. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving educational interventions that are reported in biomedical journals have been criticised for their insufficient conceptual, theoretical framework. RCTs published in journals dedicated to medical education, on the other hand, have been questioned regarding their methodological rigour. The aim of this study is therefore to assess the quality of RCTs of educational interventions reported in 2012 and 2013 in journals dedicated to medical education compared to biomedical journals with respect to objective quality criteria. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: RCTs published between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2013 in English are included. The search strategy is developed with the help of experienced librarians to search online databases for key terms. All of the identified RCTs are screened based on their titles and abstracts individually by the authors and then compared in pairs to assess agreement. Data are extracted from the included RCTs by independently scoring each RCT using a data collection form. The data collection form consists of four steps. Step 1 includes confirmation of RCT eligibility; step 2 consists of the CONSORT checklist; step 3 consists of the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument framework; step 4 consists of a Medical Education Extension (MEdEx) to the CONSORT checklist. The MEdEx includes the following elements: Description of scientific background, explanation of rationale, quality of research questions and hypotheses, clarity in the description of the use of the intervention and control as well as interpretation of results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review is the first to systematically examine the quality of RCTs conducted in medical education. We plan to disseminate the results through publications and presentation at relevant conferences. Ethical approval is not sought for this review. BMJ Publishing Group 2014-07-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4120313/ /pubmed/25079932 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005155 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Medical Education and Training
Tolsgaard, Martin G
Ku, Cheryl
Woods, Nicole N
Kulasegaram, Kulamakan Mahan
Brydges, Ryan
Ringsted, Charlotte
Quality of randomised controlled trials in medical education reported between 2012 and 2013: a systematic review protocol
title Quality of randomised controlled trials in medical education reported between 2012 and 2013: a systematic review protocol
title_full Quality of randomised controlled trials in medical education reported between 2012 and 2013: a systematic review protocol
title_fullStr Quality of randomised controlled trials in medical education reported between 2012 and 2013: a systematic review protocol
title_full_unstemmed Quality of randomised controlled trials in medical education reported between 2012 and 2013: a systematic review protocol
title_short Quality of randomised controlled trials in medical education reported between 2012 and 2013: a systematic review protocol
title_sort quality of randomised controlled trials in medical education reported between 2012 and 2013: a systematic review protocol
topic Medical Education and Training
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4120313/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25079932
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005155
work_keys_str_mv AT tolsgaardmarting qualityofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinmedicaleducationreportedbetween2012and2013asystematicreviewprotocol
AT kucheryl qualityofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinmedicaleducationreportedbetween2012and2013asystematicreviewprotocol
AT woodsnicolen qualityofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinmedicaleducationreportedbetween2012and2013asystematicreviewprotocol
AT kulasegaramkulamakanmahan qualityofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinmedicaleducationreportedbetween2012and2013asystematicreviewprotocol
AT brydgesryan qualityofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinmedicaleducationreportedbetween2012and2013asystematicreviewprotocol
AT ringstedcharlotte qualityofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinmedicaleducationreportedbetween2012and2013asystematicreviewprotocol