↓ Skip to main content

Teaching residents: critical appraisal of the literature using a journal club format

Overview of attention for article published in Postgraduate Medical Journal, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Teaching residents: critical appraisal of the literature using a journal club format
Published in
Postgraduate Medical Journal, April 2016
DOI 10.1136/postgradmedj-2015-133921
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erik Hohmann, Kevin Tetsworth

Abstract

Critical appraisal of the literature is an integral and important part of surgical practice, but can this skill be taught to young doctors? The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of formal instruction regarding critical review and appraisal of journal articles, using junior surgical residents followed over the course of a 10-week long programme. First-year surgical residents who participated in the department of orthopaedic surgery's compulsory journal club evaluated one article per week for 10 weeks, using the reviewer guidelines and a scoring system currently used by Arthroscopy. The article was selected by a senior consultant orthopaedic surgeon and was provided for assessment to each resident the week prior. The scores and evaluation recommendation (accept, revise and reject) of the residents were then compared against the senior surgeon's assessment. A contingency table and Fisher's exact test was used to compare the frequency of agreement between the decisions of the senior surgeon and the residents. Twenty residents were included. Agreement in overall total assessment scores increased significantly (p=0.0001) from 49.5% at session 1 to 82.5% at session 10. When comparing the mean percentage of agreement of the first five sessions (61%) with the second five sessions (95%), a significant (p=0.03) increase was observed. The percentage of agreement with the senior surgeon (whether the article should be accepted, revised or rejected) improved from 0% for the first session to 60% at the last session (χ(2)=7.2-11.2, p=0.02-0.04). The results strongly suggest that a structured approach to the review and appraisal of journal articles using the format of a journal club significantly improves critical reading skills for first-year surgical residents.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 18%
Librarian 3 11%
Professor 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 8 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 46%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 8 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,371,100
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from Postgraduate Medical Journal
#2,314
of 3,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,552
of 299,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Postgraduate Medical Journal
#29
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,082 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.