Accepted Type
Oral
Code
OC1-3-1
Acceptance Declaration
Accept
Additional Information
I declare I have no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this program.
Was this work accepted for CCME 2020?
no
Category
General Call (Workshop, Oral Presentation, Poster Presentation)
Type
Oral
Sub Type
Education Research
Will the presenter be a:
Other
Presenter Other
Researcher
Affiliation
Considered for Poster
no
Title
What influence do systematic reviews in medical education really have? A bibliometric perspective
Length of Presentation
Background/Purpose
Introduction: Knowledge syntheses in medical education are intended to promote the translation to, and mobilization of, research knowledge into practice. Despite the effort invested in conducting them, how these knowledge syntheses are used is unclear. This study aimed to explore how knowledge syntheses published by the Best Evidence Medical Education Collaboration (BEME) have been used in a cross-section of published literature.
Methods
Methods: Using bibliometric techniques, citation patterns for BEME reviews were explored using data drawn from Web of Science and Scopus, and a sub-sample of citing papers.
Results
Results
Bibliometric data on 3419 papers citing 29 BEME reviews were analysed. More detailed data were extracted from a random sample of 629 full-text papers. BEME reviews were most often positioned to consolidate and summarize the current state of knowledge on a particular topic and to identify gaps in the literature; they were also used to justify current research, and less frequently to contextualize and explain results, or direct future areas of research. Their use to identify instruments or methodological approaches was relatively absent.
Conclusion
Conclusion: While BEME reviews are primarily used to justify and support other studies, the current literature does not demonstrate their translation to educational practice.
Keyword 1
Knowlege Translation
Keyword 2
BEME
Keyword 3
Evidence-informed practice
Level of Training
General
Abstract Themes
Research methods
Research methods
Quantitative
Additional Theme (First choice)
Additional Theme (Second Choice)
Additional Theme (Third Choice)
Authors
Presenter
Tanya Horsley
Term 1
Yes
Term 2
Yes
Term 3
Yes
Term 4
Yes
Term 5
Yes
