Cargando…

Knowledge syntheses in medical education: A bibliometric analysis

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 de...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Maggio, Lauren A., Costello, Joseph A., Norton, Candace, Driessen, Erik W., Artino Jr, Anthony R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7580500/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33090330
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-020-00626-9
_version_ 1783598807409229824
author Maggio, Lauren A.
Costello, Joseph A.
Norton, Candace
Driessen, Erik W.
Artino Jr, Anthony R.
author_facet Maggio, Lauren A.
Costello, Joseph A.
Norton, Candace
Driessen, Erik W.
Artino Jr, Anthony R.
author_sort Maggio, Lauren A.
collection PubMed
description 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40037-020-00626-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7580500
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75805002020-10-23 Knowledge syntheses in medical education: A bibliometric analysis Maggio, Lauren A. Costello, Joseph A. Norton, Candace Driessen, Erik W. Artino Jr, Anthony R. Perspect Med Educ Review Article 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40037-020-00626-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2020-10-22 2021-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7580500/ /pubmed/33090330 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-020-00626-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Review Article
Maggio, Lauren A.
Costello, Joseph A.
Norton, Candace
Driessen, Erik W.
Artino Jr, Anthony R.
Knowledge syntheses in medical education: A bibliometric analysis
title Knowledge syntheses in medical education: A bibliometric analysis
title_full Knowledge syntheses in medical education: A bibliometric analysis
title_fullStr Knowledge syntheses in medical education: A bibliometric analysis
title_full_unstemmed Knowledge syntheses in medical education: A bibliometric analysis
title_short Knowledge syntheses in medical education: A bibliometric analysis
title_sort knowledge syntheses in medical education: a bibliometric analysis
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7580500/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33090330
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-020-00626-9
work_keys_str_mv AT maggiolaurena knowledgesynthesesinmedicaleducationabibliometricanalysis
AT costellojosepha knowledgesynthesesinmedicaleducationabibliometricanalysis
AT nortoncandace knowledgesynthesesinmedicaleducationabibliometricanalysis
AT driessenerikw knowledgesynthesesinmedicaleducationabibliometricanalysis
AT artinojranthonyr knowledgesynthesesinmedicaleducationabibliometricanalysis