MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2886898559 · doi:10.1097/01.eem.0000480773.37727.4e

Viewpoint

2016· article· en· W2886898559 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Catie Reynolds, Daniel G. Ostermayer

Notice bibliographique

RevueEmergency Medicine News · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealth Sciences Research and Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAttendanceDocumentationClosing (real estate)Journal clubSocial mediaClubDilemmaLibrary sciencePublic relationsSociologyMedical educationPolitical scienceMedicineWorld Wide WebComputer scienceLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

FigureFigureJournal clubs have served as a way for the local medical community to appraise and dissect medical literature for more than two centuries. (Postgrad Med J 1987;63[740]:475.) The first journal clubs date back to the early 1800s, and involved cards, smoky rooms, and late-night discussion. Sir William Osler organized a formal meeting at McGill University in 1875, and since then, residents and attendings have discussed classic and new research in settings ranging from resident conferences to local bars. The traditional format of a local journal club is undoubtedly successful, but it has significant constraints. Only physicians in attendance gain from the discussion. Even fantastic local clubs have little global impact, and documentation for knowledge translation and recall is often absent. Online tools offer opportunities for local emergency medicine journal clubs to reimagine their place within the global EM community, increase engagement, and enhance knowledge translation. Many journal clubs struggle to achieve maximum attendance because of busy resident and attending schedules. An innovative solution to this dilemma has been demonstrated by the Global EM Journal Club Series hosted by Academic Life in Emergency Medicine. (www.ALiEM.com; Ann Emerg Med 2014;63[4]:490.) The blog picks a journal article to discuss and allows its followers to contribute talking points on Twitter using the hashtag #ALiEMJC until a specific closing date. They then host a discussion of experts on Google+, with an accompanying blog post that includes a summary of the Twitter discussion. The Global EMJC Series using social media eliminates attendance stress by allowing everyone to contribute through Twitter and comments on the blog asynchronously. This setup, however, can make the contributions difficult to navigate because some comments are made on the video Google+ hangout while others are hidden within the Twitter summary. This format also lacks integration with local existing clubs that may not read the scheduled paper during the assigned time frame. The emergency medicine journal club at Washington University in St. Louis has enhanced recall and knowledge translation through online documentation. Recording a session makes a journal club much more valuable for members because they can later review discussions and teaching points. Many residency programs accomplish this goal privately by distributing minutes via emails to members. Documentation provides a permanent source for reviewing findings and recalling discussions, but the content is static. New literature cannot be added to older journal reviews, and these reviews are typically impossible to locate on a busy shift. WikEM's Journal Club offers a novel approach to an accessible, dynamic journal club with ongoing discussion and contributions. (www.WikEM.org.) By using a wiki exactly like Wikipedia, any member from any journal club at any time can contribute knowledge gained from local discussion. The system augments the already-existing residency-sponsored in-person meetings. The material is highly integrated with core emergency medicine content linked between pages, and all content is expandable for future contributions. More importantly, the format allows local groups to set their own club schedule while also contributing relevant material to the wiki for the benefit of the global EM community. Because WikEM.org is open access and user-generated, any journal club blog post, paper, online calculator, or podcast can be referenced and linked to a discussion to curate the best related content. Pages never close or disappear, allowing participants to build on historical knowledge, validate previous studies, or refute old evidence. Most importantly, all of the content is available offline on a mobile device using the WikEM app. Journal club discussions directly translate into bedside knowledge because of this tool. Just as we use new meaningful technologies for patient care, it is imperative that we also bring Osler's journal club into the 21st century by making it more accessible and dynamic with online resources. Share this article on Twitter and Facebook. Access the links in EMN by reading this on our website or in our free iPad app, both available at www.EM-News.com. Comments? Write to us at [email protected].

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,498
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,995

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1170,006

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,297
Tête enseignante GPT0,566
Écart entre enseignants0,268 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEmergency Medicine NewsMême sujetHealth Sciences Research and EducationTravaux en français237 207