Show simple item record

Critical Appraisal of Emergency Medicine Educational Research: The Best Publications of 2009

dc.contributor.authorKuhn, Gloria J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorShayne, Philipen_US
dc.contributor.authorCoates, Wendy C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFisher, Jonathanen_US
dc.contributor.authorLin, Michelleen_US
dc.contributor.authorMaggio, Lauren A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFarrell, Susan E.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-01-31T17:23:18Z
dc.date.available2011-12-02T15:41:53Zen_US
dc.date.issued2010-10en_US
dc.identifier.citationKuhn, Gloria J.; Shayne, Philip; Coates, Wendy C.; Fisher, Jonathan; Lin, Michelle; Maggio, Lauren A.; Farrell, Susan E.; (2010). "Critical Appraisal of Emergency Medicine Educational Research: The Best Publications of 2009." Academic Emergency Medicine 17(s2 CORD/CDEM Educational Advances Supplement ): S16-S25. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/79057>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1069-6563en_US
dc.identifier.issn1553-2712en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/79057
dc.description.abstractThe objective was to critically appraise and highlight methodologically superior medical education research specific to emergency medicine (EM) published in 2009.A search of the English language literature in 2009 querying Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE 1950 to Present, Web of Science, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and PsychInfo identified 36 EM studies that used hypothesis-testing or observational investigations of educational interventions. Six reviewers independently ranked all publications based on 10 criteria, including four related to methodology, that were chosen a priori to standardize evaluation by reviewers. This was a refinement of the methods used to appraise medical education published in 2008.Seven studies met the standards as determined by the averaged rankings and are highlighted and summarized here. This year, 16 of 36 (44%) identified studies had funding, compared to 11 of 30 (36%) identified last year; five of seven (71%) highlighted publications were funded in 2009 compared to three of five (60%) highlighted in 2008. Use of technology in medical education was reported in 14 identified and four highlighted publications, with simulation being the most common technology studied. Five of the seven (71%) featured publications used a quasi-experimental or experimental design, one was observational, and one was qualitative. Practice management topics, including patient safety, efficiency, and revenue generation, were examined in seven reviewed studies.Thirty-six medical education publications published in 2009 focusing on EM were identified. This critical appraisal reviews and highlights seven studies that met a priori quality indicators. Current trends are noted.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:S16–S25 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicineen_US
dc.format.extent87235 bytes
dc.format.extent3106 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.subject.otherUndergraduate Medical Educationen_US
dc.subject.otherGraduate Medical Educationen_US
dc.subject.otherContinuing Medical Educationen_US
dc.subject.otherEducation Researchen_US
dc.subject.otherEmergency Medicineen_US
dc.titleCritical Appraisal of Emergency Medicine Educational Research: The Best Publications of 2009en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMedicine (General)en_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.pmid21199079en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/79057/1/j.1553-2712.2010.00899.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00899.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceAcademic Emergency Medicineen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.