Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
As the field of medical education continues to advance and be recognized as a legitimate academic field, medical education specialty journals and publications are increasing. Opportunities to publish systematic reviews using particular methodological frameworks (e.g. Cochrane, BEME (Best Evidence Medical Education), AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality)) are also on the rise. However, methodological approaches across these entities and patterns of publication are not well understood.
Objectives:
We sought to:
- determine indexing characteristics;
- identify the most productive journals/organizations ;
- estimate time to publication; and
- compare the various methodological frameworks that medical education systematic review authors could consider.
Methods:
Using a sensitive search filter for systematic reviews the team identified English-language publications indexed as ‘medical education’ from 1990 to 2014. Databases of major organizations producing reviews of medical education were also searched. Duplicate assessment was used to identify relevant records. Relevant records were reviewed to record and summarize all necessary publication and reporting characteristics.
Results:
Data for the most productive journals and entities producing medical education systematic reviews are provided. Time to publication of data, protocol publication frequency and descriptive characteristics are also summarized. Broad methodological constructs across entities are compared.
Conclusions:
This information provides valuable insights into publication patterns of systematic reviews of medical education relevant to producers, editors and entities supporting review production. Further research will examine if differences in 'quality' exists between various reports produced by review entities and determine factors that influence an authors decision about where to publish.
As the field of medical education continues to advance and be recognized as a legitimate academic field, medical education specialty journals and publications are increasing. Opportunities to publish systematic reviews using particular methodological frameworks (e.g. Cochrane, BEME (Best Evidence Medical Education), AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality)) are also on the rise. However, methodological approaches across these entities and patterns of publication are not well understood.
Objectives:
We sought to:
- determine indexing characteristics;
- identify the most productive journals/organizations ;
- estimate time to publication; and
- compare the various methodological frameworks that medical education systematic review authors could consider.
Methods:
Using a sensitive search filter for systematic reviews the team identified English-language publications indexed as ‘medical education’ from 1990 to 2014. Databases of major organizations producing reviews of medical education were also searched. Duplicate assessment was used to identify relevant records. Relevant records were reviewed to record and summarize all necessary publication and reporting characteristics.
Results:
Data for the most productive journals and entities producing medical education systematic reviews are provided. Time to publication of data, protocol publication frequency and descriptive characteristics are also summarized. Broad methodological constructs across entities are compared.
Conclusions:
This information provides valuable insights into publication patterns of systematic reviews of medical education relevant to producers, editors and entities supporting review production. Further research will examine if differences in 'quality' exists between various reports produced by review entities and determine factors that influence an authors decision about where to publish.