PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M P Pfeifer

Publications and source records attributed to M P Pfeifer.

8 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1992

Medical school libraries' handling of articles that report invalid science.

In 1989-90 the authors conducted a nationwide study to examine how academic medical libraries handled articles that report invalid science and to determine the effectiveness of any policies implemented to limit the use of such articles. Ninety-five of the 127 medical school libraries the authors surveyed completed questionnaires analyzing policy and attitude issues. Eighty-four of these libraries manually reviewed the available copies they held of ten retracted articles. Of the 811 copies of the retracted, invalid articles reviewed, 742 (91.5%) were not tagged as being invalid. Seventy-nine percent of the libraries had tagged none of the retracted studies and only 16% had policies for managing articles that report invalid science. Academic librarians reflected a common attitude against perceived library censorship and emphasized the user's role in assuring validity. The nation's medical libraries, at least in part by intent, do not commonly identify or have policies to handle the invalid articles they hold. The authors conclude that biomedical researchers, clinicians, and teachers should not assume published studies held in libraries are inherently valid. The lack of stated policy and the disparate assumptions about the role libraries play in this area may perpetuate the use of invalid articles.

Data Collection↗
PubMed1992

The characteristics of medical retraction notices.

During the past twenty years, more than ninety retraction notices have been published in biomedical journals. These retractions constitute a unique body of literature that biomedical researchers, bibliographers, and librarians must monitor to reduce scientific use of retracted, invalid papers. An analysis of medical retraction notices shows that very few are prominent in style, format, or placement, in spite of authoritative publication standards formulated by the International Council of Medical Journal Editors. Although researchers are ultimately responsible for the validity of the information they cite in their own publications, biomedical librarians are in a unique position to educate their patrons regarding retracted papers.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed1990

The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature.

Little is known about the ultimate scientific fate of retracted, invalid literature. We identified 82 completely retracted articles by electronic and manual methods and measured their subsequent use in the scientific literature by performing citation analysis. After retraction, these studies were cited, for support of scientific concepts, 733 times. Comparison with a control group revealed that retraction reduces subsequent citation by approximately 35%. There was no evidence that small, obscure journals, non-US journals, or non-US authors were disproportionately responsible for these citations. Although, after retraction, US authors accounted for a smaller percentage of citations, they continued to be the single greatest source. Several possible reasons why invalid information continues to be used were identified. These included a dearth of available information on retracted works; inconsistency in retraction format, terminology, and indexing; and an apparent lack of sufficient attention to manuscripts by some authors and editors.

Asia↗
PubMed1985

Treble jeopardy.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Digestive System↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The influence of student interest on teaching evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the influence of student subject bias on the evaluation of didactic teaching. DESIGN: Prospective study evaluating the relationship between the interest of junior students in 30 clinical topics and the students' subsequent evaluations of lecturers for these topics. SETTING: University internal medicine junior core curriculum. PARTICIPANTS: 56 junior students. Lecturers were senior internal medicine residents. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There was no correlation between mean student interest scores for the topics and either immediate or end-of-rotation lecturer evaluation scores (R = -0.14 and 0.09 and p = 0.47 and 0.61, respectively). For 20 of 30 topics (66%) more than 50% of the students assigned the same level of high, intermediate, or low interest. There was no significant difference (p = 0.84) in the mean lecturer evaluation scores for these three divergent groups. Analysis of individual lecturers' evaluation scores revealed stratification to a given range independent of student interest in the topic. CONCLUSIONS: Students do not appear to be biased by their degree of interest in a subject when evaluating teaching skills. It appears unlikely that specific teaching assignments need to be considered when evaluating competence in didactic teaching.

Attitude↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Teaching residents to read the medical literature: a controlled trial of a curriculum in critical appraisal/clinical epidemiology.

OBJECTIVE: To teach internal medicine residents key principles of clinical epidemiology that are necessary to read critically the medical literature. DESIGN: Two-phase, non-randomized, controlled educational trial. SETTING: University-based training program for residents (PGY-l-PGY-3) in internal medicine. PARTICIPANTS: All 83 residents participated in the trial. Seventy residents completed a test in clinical epidemiology at the end of Phases I and II. INTERVENTIONS: Residents were assigned to one of eight ambulatory care clinics for half a day each week. A literature-based curriculum in critical appraisal was the subject of a weekly pre-clinic conference for four clinics (Group A). The other four clinics (Group B) had a weekly conference on topics in ambulatory care medicine. At the end of Phase I, both groups were given a test of basic knowledge of clinical epidemiology. The curriculum was then modified with the addition of written questions to emphasize important educational points and to stimulate resident participation. The modified curriculum became the subject of the pre-clinic conference for Group B, while Group A changed to topics in ambulatory medicine. At the end of Phase II both groups were again tested on basic knowledge of clinical epidemiology. RESULTS: Group B performed significantly better on the second test than on the first, 68.5% vs. 63.3% (p = 0.034), while Group A did not improve (64.5% vs. 65.9%). The differences in test scores for Test II minus Test I were +5.17% in Group B and -1.44% in Group A (p = 0.019). Twenty-one percent of Group B residents vs. 5% of Group A residents improved their scores by 18% or more. CONCLUSIONS: The residency period is a difficult but important time to teach critical appraisal skills. Educational gains may be small and need to be critically evaluated to stimulate the development of more effective educational programs.

Ambulatory Care↗