BACKGROUND: This study examined the methodologic quality of medical education research published in The American Journal of Surgery (AJS) relative to other journals and in AJS itself over time. METHODS: Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) scores were determined for 198 education studies published in 2003 in 13 peer-reviewed journals including AJS and all 38 AJS education studies published in 2007. RESULTS: In 2003, the mean (standard deviation) MERSQI scores of AJS studies were 11.03 (2.12) compared with 9.83 (2.37) for studies published in the other 12 journals (P = .03). AJS studies received higher scores for response rate (P < .001) and content validity (P = .03) than other journals. The mean MERSQI scores among AJS studies remained constant between 2003 and 2007 (12.03 [2.35] vs 11.03 [2.12], P = .13). CONCLUSIONS: Education studies published in AJS compared favorably with those published in other journals, and this quality was maintained over time. Nonetheless, there is room for improvement with respect to study designs and outcome assessment.
BACKGROUND: This study examined the methodologic quality of medical education research published in The American Journal of Surgery (AJS) relative to other journals and in AJS itself over time. METHODS: Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) scores were determined for 198 education studies published in 2003 in 13 peer-reviewed journals including AJS and all 38 AJS education studies published in 2007. RESULTS: In 2003, the mean (standard deviation) MERSQI scores of AJS studies were 11.03 (2.12) compared with 9.83 (2.37) for studies published in the other 12 journals (P = .03). AJS studies received higher scores for response rate (P < .001) and content validity (P = .03) than other journals. The mean MERSQI scores among AJS studies remained constant between 2003 and 2007 (12.03 [2.35] vs 11.03 [2.12], P = .13). CONCLUSIONS: Education studies published in AJS compared favorably with those published in other journals, and this quality was maintained over time. Nonetheless, there is room for improvement with respect to study designs and outcome assessment.
Authors: Adam P Sawatsky; Thomas J Beckman; Jithinraj Edakkanambeth Varayil; Jayawant N Mandrekar; Darcy A Reed; Amy T Wang Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Brita Roy; Lisa L Willett; Carol Bates; Briar Duffy; Kathel Dunn; Reena Karani; Shobhina G Chheda Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Gail M Sullivan; Deborah Simpson; David A Cook; Nicole M DeIorio; Kathryn Andolsek; Lawrence Opas; Ingrid Philibert; Lalena M Yarris Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2014-09
Authors: Brita Roy; Shobhina G Chheda; Carol Bates; Kathel Dunn; Reena Karani; Lisa L Willett Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Patricia A Carney; M Patrice Eiff; John W Saultz; Erik Lindbloom; Elaine Waller; Samuel Jones; Jamie Osborn; Larry Green Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2012-03
Authors: Samuel O Clarke; Jaime Jordan; Lalena M Yarris; Emilie Fowlkes; Jaqueline Kurth; Daniel Runde; Wendy C Coates Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2017-11-14