| Literature DB >> 18053247 |
Pentti Nieminen1, Kirsi Sipilä, Hanna-Mari Takkinen, Marjo Renko, Leila Risteli.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Teaching the principles of scientific research in a comprehensive way is important at medical and dental schools. In many countries medical and dental training is not complete until the candidate has presented a diploma thesis. The objective of this study was to evaluate the nature, quality, publication pattern and visibility of Finnish medical diploma theses.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2007 PMID: 18053247 PMCID: PMC2235851 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-7-51
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
Distribution of publications by characteristics of the theses.
| Publications | ||||
| Characteristics of the theses | No publications | Finnish | English | All |
| Field | ||||
| ▪ Clinical medicine | 104 (72.7) | 6 (4.2) | 33 (23.1) | 143 (100) |
| ▪ Biomedicine | 4 (44.4) | 0 (0) | 5 (55.6) | 9 (100) |
| ▪ Diagnostics or pharmacology | 23 (69.7) | 0 (0) | 10 (30.3) | 33 (100) |
| ▪ Public health science and general practice | 20 (90.9) | 1 (4.5) | 1 (4.5) | 22 (100) |
| ▪ Dentistry | 44 (89.8) | 1 (2.0) | 4 (8.2) | 49 (100) |
| Type | ||||
| ▪ Quantitative | 81 (68.1) | 3 (2.5) | 35 (29.4) | 119 (100) |
| ▪ Brief quantitative | 53 (89.8) | 2 (3.4) | 4 (6.8) | 59 (100) |
| ▪ Literature review | 29 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 29 (100) |
| ▪ Other | 32 (65.3) | 3 (6.1) | 14 (28.6) | 49 (100) |
| Supervisor | ||||
| ▪ Professor | 68 (68.7) | 4 (4.0) | 27 (27.3) | 99 (100) |
| ▪ Adjunct professor | 46 (82.1) | 1 (1.8) | 9 (16.1) | 56 (100) |
| ▪ Other | 67 (84.8) | 2 (2.5) | 10 (12.7) | 79 (100) |
| ▪ Unknown | 14 (63.6) | 1 (4.5) | 7 (31.8) | 22 (100) |
| Structure of scientific article | ||||
| ▪ No | 47 (95.9) | 2 (4.1) | 0 (0) | 49 (100) |
| ▪ Yes | 148 (76.7) | 6 (3.1) | 39 (20.2) | 193 (100) |
| ▪ Printed publication | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 14 (100) | 14 (100) |
| Language | ||||
| ▪ Finnish or Swedish | 169 (91.4) | 8 (4.3) | 8 (4.3) | 185 (100) |
| ▪ English | 26 (36.6) | 0 (0) | 45 (63.4) | 71 (100) |
| Technical quality | ||||
| ▪ Poor | 49 (89.1) | 3 (5.5) | 3 (5.5) | 55 (100) |
| ▪ Good | 103 (83.1) | 3 (2.4) | 18 (14.5) | 124 (100) |
| ▪ Excellent | 43 (68.3) | 2 (3.2) | 18 (28.6) | 63 (100) |
| ▪ Printed publication | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 14 (100) | 14 (100) |
| Total | 195 (76.2) | 8 (3.1) | 53 (20.7) | 256 |
Figure 1Distribution of impact factor by field. The horizontal line in the middle of the box is the median value for the journal impact factor and the lower and upper boundaries indicate the 25th and 75th percentiles. The largest and smallest observed values that are not outliers are also shown. Lines are drawn from the ends of the box to those values.