Online citations, reference lists, and bibliographies.
Please confirm you are human
(Sign Up for free to never see this)
← Back to Search

Quality Of Randomised Controlled Trials In Medical Education Reported Between 2012 And 2013: A Systematic Review Protocol

M. Tolsgaard, Cheryl Ku, N. Woods, K. Kulasegaram, R. Brydges, C. Ringsted
Published 2014 · Medicine

Save to my Library
Download PDF
Analyze on Scholarcy
Share
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.
This paper references
10.1001/JAMA.298.9.1002
Association between funding and quality of published medical education research.
D. Reed (2007)
10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03342.x
Broadening the debate about quality in medical education research
K. Eva (2009)
PRISMA statement. http://www.prisma-statement.org (accessed 5
(2014)
10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03306.x
Reply to Dornan et al.’s ‘On evidence’
A. Stephenson (2009)
10.1136/bmj.f3755
Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials
T. Hoffmann (2013)
10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829a365d
Mastery Learning for Health Professionals Using Technology-Enhanced Simulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
D. Cook (2013)
10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828abf7f
AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research.
J. Frambach (2013)
10.1136/BMJ.39253.544688.94
Medical education research remains the poor relation
Mathew Todres (2007)
10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002073
Evaluating the impact and use of Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomised Designs (TREND) reporting guidelines
Thomas Fuller (2012)
10.1097/ACM.0000000000000099
AM last page: Health insurance expansion impact on patients, states, and providers.
Jason Kleinman (2014)
10.1016/J.YANE.2012.02.026
Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis
M. Roizen (2012)
Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research
JM Frambach (2013)
10.1136/bmj.c332
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
K. Schulz (2010)
10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?
A. Jadad (1996)
10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61854-5
Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world
J. Frenk (2010)
10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04328.x
Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach
D. Cook (2012)
10.3109/0142159X.2013.786168
50 years of publication in the field of medical education
Kyungjoon Lee (2013)
10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03890.x
Method and reporting quality in health professions education research: a systematic review
D. Cook (2011)
10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00232
CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomized Trials
K. Schulz (2010)
10.1136/BMJ.330.7499.1056
Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: survey of instructions for authors
D. Altman (2005)
10.1371/journal.pone.0001577
A Systematic Evaluation of the Impact of STRICTA and CONSORT Recommendations on Quality of Reporting for Acupuncture Trials
S. Prady (2008)



This paper is referenced by
Semantic Scholar Logo Some data provided by SemanticScholar