PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Randy S Hebert

Publications and source records attributed to Randy S Hebert.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

Minimal prevalence of authorship misrepresentation among internal medicine residency applicants: do previous estimates of "misrepresentation" represent insufficient case finding?.

BACKGROUND: High rates of authorship misrepresentation have been documented among medical trainees. OBJECTIVE: To assess misrepresentation among internal medicine residency applicants while comparing searches used by previous authors (searches 1 and 2) to a more comprehensive strategy (search 3). DESIGN: Review of 497 residency applications. SETTING: Two university-based internal medicine residency programs. MEASUREMENTS: Search 1 was limited to MEDLINE. Search 2 added Current Contents, Science Citation Index, and BIOSIS and included searching journals by hand. Search 3 added seven other databases and contacts to librarians, editors, and coauthors. RESULTS: 224 applicants reported 634 articles; 630 (99%) were verified. The number of applicants with misrepresented citations varied depending on the search used (56 applicants [25%] in search 1 vs. 34 applicants [15%] in search 2 vs. 4 applicants [1.8%] in search 3). CONCLUSIONS: Using a comprehensive search, we found substantially less misrepresentation than had been reported. Previous studies probably overestimated the magnitude of the problem.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

A systematic review of resident research curricula.

PURPOSE: To review in a systematic manner the published curricula for training house officers in research. METHOD: Articles were identified by searching the Medline, Educational Resources Information Center, and Science Citation Index databases, educational Web sites, and bibliographies of captured articles, and by contacting experts who had developed resident research curricula. Demographic information, curriculum development steps, educational strategies, evaluation methods, and outcomes were abstracted. RESULTS: The search identified 41 articles describing curricula. The most common curricular objectives were to increase house officers' research productivity and improve their critical appraisal skills. Only one curriculum was designed with the goal of producing academic physicians. Among many instructional methods, conducting research projects, exposing learners to role models or mentors, and providing house officers with multiple opportunities to present their work were common. Only 27 articles (66%) articulated goals or objectives, and 11 included (27%) needs assessments. Evaluation methods were often rudimentary, frequently limited to learners' self-assessments or authors' anecdotal reports. Five (12%) reported pre-post-intervention testing of learners' knowledge. No curricula were evaluated as prospective pretest-posttest controlled trials. A minority of articles reported costs, obstacles encountered, or modifications made in the curriculum. CONCLUSION: Successful educational interventions should incorporate needs assessments, clearly defined learning objectives, and evaluation methods. While many curricula for resident research exist, the lack of detailed developmental information and meaningful evaluations hinders educators interested in adopting these curricula.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2002

Prominent medical journals often provide insufficient information to assess the validity of studies with negative results.

BACKGROUND: Physicians reading the medical literature attempt to determine whether research studies are valid. However, articles with negative results may not provide sufficient information to allow physicians to properly assess validity. METHODS: We analyzed all original research articles with negative results published in 1997 in the weekly journals BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine as well as those published in the 1997 and 1998 issues of the bimonthly Annals of Internal Medicine (N = 234). Our primary objective was to quantify the proportion of studies with negative results that comment on power and present confidence intervals. Secondary outcomes were to quantify the proportion of these studies with a specified effect size and a defined primary outcome. Stratified analyses by study design were also performed. RESULTS: Only 30% of the articles with negative results comment on power. The reporting of power (range: 15%-52%) and confidence intervals (range: 55-81%) varied significantly among journals. Observational studies of etiology/risk factors addressed power less frequently (15%, 95% CI, 8-21%) than did clinical trials (56%, 95% CI, 46-67%, p < 0.001). While 87% of articles with power calculations specified an effect size the authors sought to detect, a minority gave a rationale for the effect size. Only half of the studies with negative results clearly defined a primary outcome. CONCLUSION: Prominent medical journals often provide insufficient information to assess the validity of studies with negative results.

Confidence Intervals↗