Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: A systematic review

David Allan Cook, Thomas J. Beckman, Georges Bordage

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

123 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Determine the prevalence of essential elements of reporting in experimental studies in medical education. Design: Systematic review. Data Sources: Articles published in 2003 and 2004 in Academic Medicine, Advances in Health Sciences Education, American Journal of Surgery, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Medical Education, and Teaching and Learning in Medicine. Review Methods: Articles describing education experiments, including evaluation studies with experimental designs, were identified (n = 185) by reviewing titles and abstracts. A random sample (n = 110) was selected for full review. The full text of each article was evaluated for the presence of guideline-based features of quality reporting: a critical literature review, conceptual framework, statement of study intent (e.g. aim, research question, or hypothesis), statement of study design, definition of main intervention and comparison intervention or control group, and consideration of human subject rights. Results: Of the 105 articles suitable for review, 47 (45%) contained a critical literature review and 58 (55%) presented a conceptual framework. A statement of study intent was present in 80 articles (76%), among which the independent and dependent variables were operationally defined in 38 (47%) and 26 articles (32%), respectively. A total of 17 articles (16%) contained an explicit study design statement. Among the 48 studies with a comparison group, 35 (73%) clearly defined the comparison intervention or control group. Institutional review board approval or participant consent was reported in 44 articles (42%). Conclusions: The quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education was generally poor. Criteria are proposed as a starting point for establishing reporting standards for medical education research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)737-745
Number of pages9
JournalMedical Education
Volume41
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2007

Fingerprint

Medical Education
education
Medicine
medicine
Control Groups
Information Storage and Retrieval
Research Ethics Committees
Internal Medicine
Health Education
Biomedical Research
Teaching
Research Design
Group
Learning
Guidelines
health science
Education
random sample
surgery
Research

Keywords

  • *education, medical
  • Data collection/ standards
  • Guidelines
  • Periodicals/ *standards
  • Professional competence/ *standards
  • Research design/ *standards
  • Review [publication type]

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)
  • Education
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education : A systematic review. / Cook, David Allan; Beckman, Thomas J.; Bordage, Georges.

In: Medical Education, Vol. 41, No. 8, 08.2007, p. 737-745.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cook, David Allan ; Beckman, Thomas J. ; Bordage, Georges. / Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education : A systematic review. In: Medical Education. 2007 ; Vol. 41, No. 8. pp. 737-745.
@article{b00909b6dfb5490699cb6e7377ec8d38,
title = "Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: A systematic review",
abstract = "Objective: Determine the prevalence of essential elements of reporting in experimental studies in medical education. Design: Systematic review. Data Sources: Articles published in 2003 and 2004 in Academic Medicine, Advances in Health Sciences Education, American Journal of Surgery, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Medical Education, and Teaching and Learning in Medicine. Review Methods: Articles describing education experiments, including evaluation studies with experimental designs, were identified (n = 185) by reviewing titles and abstracts. A random sample (n = 110) was selected for full review. The full text of each article was evaluated for the presence of guideline-based features of quality reporting: a critical literature review, conceptual framework, statement of study intent (e.g. aim, research question, or hypothesis), statement of study design, definition of main intervention and comparison intervention or control group, and consideration of human subject rights. Results: Of the 105 articles suitable for review, 47 (45{\%}) contained a critical literature review and 58 (55{\%}) presented a conceptual framework. A statement of study intent was present in 80 articles (76{\%}), among which the independent and dependent variables were operationally defined in 38 (47{\%}) and 26 articles (32{\%}), respectively. A total of 17 articles (16{\%}) contained an explicit study design statement. Among the 48 studies with a comparison group, 35 (73{\%}) clearly defined the comparison intervention or control group. Institutional review board approval or participant consent was reported in 44 articles (42{\%}). Conclusions: The quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education was generally poor. Criteria are proposed as a starting point for establishing reporting standards for medical education research.",
keywords = "*education, medical, Data collection/ standards, Guidelines, Periodicals/ *standards, Professional competence/ *standards, Research design/ *standards, Review [publication type]",
author = "Cook, {David Allan} and Beckman, {Thomas J.} and Georges Bordage",
year = "2007",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02777.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "737--745",
journal = "Medical Education",
issn = "0308-0110",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Cook, David Allan

AU - Beckman, Thomas J.

AU - Bordage, Georges

PY - 2007/8

Y1 - 2007/8

N2 - Objective: Determine the prevalence of essential elements of reporting in experimental studies in medical education. Design: Systematic review. Data Sources: Articles published in 2003 and 2004 in Academic Medicine, Advances in Health Sciences Education, American Journal of Surgery, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Medical Education, and Teaching and Learning in Medicine. Review Methods: Articles describing education experiments, including evaluation studies with experimental designs, were identified (n = 185) by reviewing titles and abstracts. A random sample (n = 110) was selected for full review. The full text of each article was evaluated for the presence of guideline-based features of quality reporting: a critical literature review, conceptual framework, statement of study intent (e.g. aim, research question, or hypothesis), statement of study design, definition of main intervention and comparison intervention or control group, and consideration of human subject rights. Results: Of the 105 articles suitable for review, 47 (45%) contained a critical literature review and 58 (55%) presented a conceptual framework. A statement of study intent was present in 80 articles (76%), among which the independent and dependent variables were operationally defined in 38 (47%) and 26 articles (32%), respectively. A total of 17 articles (16%) contained an explicit study design statement. Among the 48 studies with a comparison group, 35 (73%) clearly defined the comparison intervention or control group. Institutional review board approval or participant consent was reported in 44 articles (42%). Conclusions: The quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education was generally poor. Criteria are proposed as a starting point for establishing reporting standards for medical education research.

AB - Objective: Determine the prevalence of essential elements of reporting in experimental studies in medical education. Design: Systematic review. Data Sources: Articles published in 2003 and 2004 in Academic Medicine, Advances in Health Sciences Education, American Journal of Surgery, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Medical Education, and Teaching and Learning in Medicine. Review Methods: Articles describing education experiments, including evaluation studies with experimental designs, were identified (n = 185) by reviewing titles and abstracts. A random sample (n = 110) was selected for full review. The full text of each article was evaluated for the presence of guideline-based features of quality reporting: a critical literature review, conceptual framework, statement of study intent (e.g. aim, research question, or hypothesis), statement of study design, definition of main intervention and comparison intervention or control group, and consideration of human subject rights. Results: Of the 105 articles suitable for review, 47 (45%) contained a critical literature review and 58 (55%) presented a conceptual framework. A statement of study intent was present in 80 articles (76%), among which the independent and dependent variables were operationally defined in 38 (47%) and 26 articles (32%), respectively. A total of 17 articles (16%) contained an explicit study design statement. Among the 48 studies with a comparison group, 35 (73%) clearly defined the comparison intervention or control group. Institutional review board approval or participant consent was reported in 44 articles (42%). Conclusions: The quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education was generally poor. Criteria are proposed as a starting point for establishing reporting standards for medical education research.

KW - education, medical

KW - Data collection/ standards

KW - Guidelines

KW - Periodicals/ standards

KW - Professional competence/ standards

KW - Research design/ standards

KW - Review [publication type]

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34547214232&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34547214232&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02777.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02777.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 17661881

AN - SCOPUS:34547214232

VL - 41

SP - 737

EP - 745

JO - Medical Education

JF - Medical Education

SN - 0308-0110

IS - 8

ER -