Cargando…
The Quality Of Evidence In Preclinical Medical Education Literature: A Systematic Review
INTRODUCTION: To practice effective evidence-based teaching, the need for well-designed studies that describe outcomes related to educational interventions is critical. The quality of the literate in basic science disciplines is unknown. The study objective was to conduct a systematic review of the...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6830356/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31802966 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S212858 |
Sumario: | INTRODUCTION: To practice effective evidence-based teaching, the need for well-designed studies that describe outcomes related to educational interventions is critical. The quality of the literate in basic science disciplines is unknown. The study objective was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess study design in articles describing innovations in preclinical medical education. METHOD: The authors searched PubMed for all articles published in English between 2000 and 2017 describing interventions in preclinical medical education related to anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry. Articles were scored using a modification of the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. RESULTS: Of the 817 articles identified, 177 met final inclusion criteria (75 anatomy, 86 physiology, and 16 biochemistry). Laboratory, student-driven, and online activities were the most frequently reported. The average score for all papers was 15.7 (27 points possible). More than 80% reported experiences with one cohort of students and >97% involved only one institution. Only 25–49% of reports utilized a comparison (control) group. Proper statistical models for analysis of results were used in only 44–62% of papers. CONCLUSION: Manuscripts had a strong tendency toward single institutional studies that involved one cohort of students. The use of a control/comparison group when assessing effectiveness was seen in <50% and nearly all reported outcomes solely in the form of student satisfaction or factual recall/skill performance. |
---|