Reporting quality of Master of Medicine (MMed) mini-dissertations using the STROBE checklist

IF 0.4 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
E. Grossman
{"title":"Reporting quality of Master of Medicine (MMed) mini-dissertations using the STROBE checklist","authors":"E. Grossman","doi":"10.7196/ajhpe.2022.v14i4.1594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n \nBackground. The 2011 Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) directive to make a research component compulsory for specialist registration has been decried in some circles as encouraging low-quality research.Objective. To assess the reporting quality of South African (SA) MMed mini-dissertations using the STROBE checklist.Methods. A total of 100 monograph-format mini-dissertations reporting retrospective observational research were extracted from a pool of 335 mini- dissertations. Analysis of each was undertaken using a 24-point STROBE Statement checklist. Scoring was as follows: 1 = the item was compliant with STROBE recommendations; 0.5 = partially described; and 0 = not addressed at all. Satisfactory compliance was set at 66%, thus a STROBE score of 17-24 was considered satisfactory. Data were entered into an Excel spread sheet and analysed descriptively. \nResults. STROBE item compliance for individual mini-dissertations was at a mean of 83.1%; range 50-97%; median 85% and mode 89%. Sixteen mini- dissertations were non-compliant, scoring below 17 as per the set threshold of 66%. This indicates an 84% satisfactory sample. Only Item 5 (Key settings and locations) was at 100% compliance. The four lowest scores were for STROBE items (9) Bias (29.5%); (10) Study size/power analysis (52%); (1) Title (69%) and (14) Missing data (69%). \nConclusion. The majority of sampled mini-dissertations, evaluated as per STROBE recommendations, are transparently reported to allow the reader to follow what was planned, done, found and which conclusions were drawn. As such the results confer a measure of reporting quality on the SA MMed research endeavour. The use of dissertation templates, commonly using STROBE-type headings and prompts, might have contributed to the good scores obtained. Importantly, areas of weakness in the writing of the SA MMed mini-dissertations have been highlighted and show which items require attention. \n \n \n \n","PeriodicalId":43683,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Health Professions Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Health Professions Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7196/ajhpe.2022.v14i4.1594","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. The 2011 Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) directive to make a research component compulsory for specialist registration has been decried in some circles as encouraging low-quality research.Objective. To assess the reporting quality of South African (SA) MMed mini-dissertations using the STROBE checklist.Methods. A total of 100 monograph-format mini-dissertations reporting retrospective observational research were extracted from a pool of 335 mini- dissertations. Analysis of each was undertaken using a 24-point STROBE Statement checklist. Scoring was as follows: 1 = the item was compliant with STROBE recommendations; 0.5 = partially described; and 0 = not addressed at all. Satisfactory compliance was set at 66%, thus a STROBE score of 17-24 was considered satisfactory. Data were entered into an Excel spread sheet and analysed descriptively. Results. STROBE item compliance for individual mini-dissertations was at a mean of 83.1%; range 50-97%; median 85% and mode 89%. Sixteen mini- dissertations were non-compliant, scoring below 17 as per the set threshold of 66%. This indicates an 84% satisfactory sample. Only Item 5 (Key settings and locations) was at 100% compliance. The four lowest scores were for STROBE items (9) Bias (29.5%); (10) Study size/power analysis (52%); (1) Title (69%) and (14) Missing data (69%). Conclusion. The majority of sampled mini-dissertations, evaluated as per STROBE recommendations, are transparently reported to allow the reader to follow what was planned, done, found and which conclusions were drawn. As such the results confer a measure of reporting quality on the SA MMed research endeavour. The use of dissertation templates, commonly using STROBE-type headings and prompts, might have contributed to the good scores obtained. Importantly, areas of weakness in the writing of the SA MMed mini-dissertations have been highlighted and show which items require attention.
使用STROBE检查表报告医学硕士(MMed)迷你论文的质量
背景2011年南非卫生专业委员会(HPCSA)关于强制专家注册研究部分的指令被一些圈子谴责为鼓励低质量研究。客观的使用STROBE检查表评估南非MMed小型学位论文的报告质量。方法。从335篇小型论文中提取了100篇报告回顾性观察研究的专著格式的小型论文。使用24点STROBE声明检查表对每一项进行分析。评分如下:1=该项目符合STROBE建议;0.5=部分描述;0=根本没有被寻址。令人满意的依从性设定为66%,因此STROBE评分17-24被认为是令人满意的。将数据输入Excel电子表格并进行描述性分析。后果个人小型学位论文的STROBE项目符合率平均为83.1%;范围50-97%;中位数85%,模式89%。16篇小论文不符合要求,按照66%的设定阈值,得分低于17分。这表明84%的样品令人满意。只有项目5(关键设置和位置)符合100%。STROBE项目得分最低的四项是(9)偏倚(29.5%);(10) 研究规模/功率分析(52%);(1) 标题(69%)和(14)数据缺失(69%)。结论根据STROBE的建议,大多数抽样的小型学位论文都是透明的报告,以便读者了解计划、完成、发现的内容以及得出的结论。因此,研究结果为SA MMed的研究工作提供了报告质量的衡量标准。论文模板的使用,通常使用STROBE类型的标题和提示,可能有助于获得好成绩。重要的是,SA MMed小型学位论文写作中的薄弱环节已经得到了强调,并显示了哪些项目需要注意。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
African Journal of Health Professions Education
African Journal of Health Professions Education HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信