Articles of Interest
Tips for charting the course of a successful health research career
Mbuagbaw L, Morfaw F, Kunda JE, Mukonzo JK, Kastner J, Zhang S, Kokolo M, Thabane L. Tips for charting the course of a successful health research career. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2013 Apr 24;6:163-8. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S44738. PMID: 23650449; PMCID: PMC3640602.
Abstract:
"Young health researchers all over the world often encounter difficulties in the early stages of their careers. Formal acquisition of research skills in academic settings does not always offer sufficient guidance to overcome these challenges. Based on the collective experiences of some young researchers and research mentors, we describe some tips for a successful health career and offer some useful resources. These tips include: institutional affiliation, early manuscript writing, early manuscript reviewing, finding a mentor, collaboration and networking, identifying sources of funding, establishing research interests, investing in research methods training, developing interpersonal and personal skills, providing mentorship, and balancing work with everyday life. The rationale behind these tips and how to achieve them is provided."
Ten tips for promoting your research
Hardman TC, Krentz AJ, Wierzbicki AS. Ten tips for promoting your research. Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Feb 21;9(1):30–5. doi: 10.1097/XCE.0000000000000191. PMCID: PMC7041872.
Abstract:
"Publishing the results of scientific research is more than a personal choice; it is an ethical and increasingly regulatory obligation. It is generally accepted that top-ranking journals attract wider audiences than specialist publications and scientists have long recognised that the importance of targeting so-called high impact journal in getting their work noticed. However, gaining access to top-flight journals is difficult and a broader exposure is not necessarily guaranteed. Huge competition exists for attention within the scientific literature. Traditionally, scientists have viewed promoting their own research as somewhat self-serving and gauche, preferring its value to speak (passively) for itself. However, times have changed. Researchers can now be divided into two camps: those who see publication of their research as the final step in the process and those who see it as the first step in sharing their findings with the wider world. We summarize here 10 considerations for peri-publication activities that, when used in the right measure and appropriately to the work involved should aid those looking to increase the discoverability, readership and impact of their scientific research. The internet has transformed scientific communication. If you ignore this development, it is possible that your research will not get the recognition it deserves. You need to identify the specific issues to focus on (scope) and how much effort (resource) you are prepared to commit."
Supporting Health Care Workers to Address Misinformation on Social Media
Vineet M. Arora, M.D., M.A.P.P., Eve Bloomgarden, M.D., and Shikha Jain, M.D.
May 5, 2022
N Engl J Med 2022; 386:1683-1685
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2117180
"Although the spread of misinformation has escalated during the Covid-19 pandemic, the propagation of deceptive medical claims is as old as the health care profession itself. The ease with which misinformation and disinformation (inaccurate information that is purposefully misleading) are spread by means of social media, however, presents new and complex challenges. A recent survey found that 95% of people in the United States perceived misinformation to be a problem and 41% were very or extremely worried that they were personally exposed to misinformation."
Beyond Citation Rates: A Real-Time Impact Analysis of Health Professions Education Research Using Altmetrics
Maggio, Lauren, Meyer, Holly & Artino, Anthony. (2017). Beyond Citation Rates: A Real-Time Impact Analysis of Health Professions Education Research Using Altmetrics. Academic Medicine, 92, 1449-1455. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001897.
"Traditionally researchers, including health professions education (HPE) investigators, have published research articles with the hope that colleagues will read and ultimately cite their work. In this dissemination model, citation counts are a measure of "scientific impact" and often rewarded in academia. However, citation-based metrics provide only a single view of a researcher's scientific impact, take years to accumulate, and may be poor indicators of practical impact in fields such as clinical medicine. Additionally, a citation-focused approach disregards calls from funders and the public for broader research dissemination outside academia. To meet this demand, stakeholders, including researchers, journals, and academic institutions, are sharing and promoting their research via alternative channels, such as news media, blogs, and social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter. While this dissemination approach may help broadcast research discoveries, use of these alternative communication channels is not captured by traditional citation counts. Alternative metrics, or altmetrics, have been developed to complement traditional citation-based metrics and provide a summary of how research is shared and discussed online, including by the public."
Critical Appraisal of a Systematic Review: A Concise Review
Patel, J. , Hill, A. , Lee, Z. , Heyland, D. & Stoppe, C. (2022). Critical Appraisal of a Systematic Review: A Concise Review. Critical Care Medicine, 50 (9), 1371-1379. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005602.
DATA SYNTHESIS:
A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant original research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Critical appraisal methods address both the credibility (quality of conduct) and rate the confidence in the quality of summarized evidence from a systematic review. The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 tool is a widely used practical tool to appraise the conduct of a systematic review. Confidence in estimates of effect is determined by assessing for risk of bias, inconsistency of results, imprecision, indirectness of evidence, and publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS:
Systematic reviews are transparent and reproducible summaries of research and conclusions drawn from them are only as credible and reliable as their development process and the studies which form the systematic review. Applying evidence from a systematic review to patient care considers whether the results can be directly applied, whether all important outcomes have been considered, and if the benefits are worth potential harms and costs.
