MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401442658 · doi:10.4103/picr.picr_60_24

A questionnaire-based study on literature searches among medical postgraduates

2024· article· en· W4401442658 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. Yukesh, Ushakiran Prayaga

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives in Clinical Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorical variableIBMMedical educationData collectionPresentation (obstetrics)PsychologyFamily medicineComputer scienceMedicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION Literature searching databases such as PubMed support the search and retrieval of biomedical and life sciences literature to improve health both globally and personally.[1] It is important during the postgraduate period as they were learning and need to update their knowledge about recent advances, evidence-based practice, etc., Evidence gathered through literature search can be used to answer a clinical question, write a research or review article, prepare a presentation, etc.[2] METHODS Study design The questionnaire-based study was focused on medical postgraduates’ knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) toward literature searching. The primary version was developed through a wide literature review using PubMed. Validation of questionnaire Validity of the questionnaire was randomly done on 15 selected participants and was performed by experts at the Department of Pharmacology, Rangaraya Medical College. The domains containing 4 awareness-related, 6 knowledge-related, 8 attitude-related, and 7 practice-related questions were finalized based on the pretest results. Data collection Pretested questionnaire was distributed among all participants through WhatsApp, Telegram, and LinkedIn. Google Forms was used to survey the questionnaire. One day was allotted to them for the collection of the filled forms. Statistical analysis Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 29.0.2.0 Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation while categorical variables were measured as percentages. RESULTS Four hundred participants were approached, out of which 226 (56.5%) responded to the questionnaire. Out of 226 participants, 214 (94.7%) were aware of literature searching. In the next phase, data regarding KAP of literature searching among postgraduates were collected from these 214 participants. Out of 214 postgraduates, 84 were 1st-year, 66 were 2nd-year, and 64 were 3rd-year postgraduates. Awareness about literature searching About 5.3% of participants were not aware of literature searching databases. Among the unaware, most of them were 1st-year postgraduates (75%) followed by 2nd-year postgraduates (25%). Knowledge domain Eighty-two percentage knew that literature searching was used to organize information followed by developing questions for further research, to identify lacunae and to synthesize results. About 55.1% knew about Medical Subject Headings and 68.2% knew about the Boolean operator terms such as AND, OR, and NOT. Despite knowledge of Boolean operators, 57.9% were not aware of the symbols for Boolean nesting, Boolean operator OR, search field tag, and wild card symbol. Attitude domain Eighty-five percentage of participants thought that PubMed gives more information than other databases and helps medical professionals (96%). Other than available filters, participants were thinking of adding “Vancouver” style under the cite section (89%); “transgender” under the sex filter (86%); “country” under additional filter (100%); and “case report” under article type. Practice domain Fifty-seven percentage of postgraduates preferred the Boolean operator “AND” to combine different concepts in a search whereas 27.1% preferred “OR.” About 41.1% preferred to use the Boolean operator “OR” to increase the number of results whereas 44.9% preferred “AND.” About 58.9% knew how to use keywords in a search. Despite knowledge of Boolean operators, 66.4% (n = 141) do not know how to use PICO criteria, and only 28% (n = 60) preferred “Clinical queries” to search COVID-19-related queries. DISCUSSION The ability to search the literature is crucial for evidence-based current breakthroughs, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.[3] In summary, there was a lack of knowledge about advanced search and Boolean operators in this study, but there is a positive attitude toward literature searches. By interpreting the results, it appears that 3rd-year postgraduates had significantly greater knowledge (P = 0.0001) and practice (P = 0.0007) than 1st-year postgraduates. Indeed, there is a lack of clarity regarding the appropriate usage and context for the fundamental search field tags such as (tiab) and (ta) and Boolean operators such as “AND” and “OR.”[3] This study could serve as a foundation for subsequent KAP investigations, given there has not been any research done on KAP regarding literature searches up to this point.[2] This study could not be generalized to a large population due to the small sample size. In conclusion, effective medical curricula must be implemented to improve medical students’ knowledge regarding literature searching. Furthermore, awareness has to be created among medical students through regular classes and workshops. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.597
GPT teacher head0.724
Teacher spread0.126 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives in Clinical ResearchSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207