scholarly journals How to read an ethics paper

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (12) ◽  
pp. 810-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie Jansen ◽  
Peter Ellerton
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Medical Ethics ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Critical Reasoning ◽  
Ethical Decisions ◽  
Journal Clubs ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Work Done

In recent decades, evidence-based medicine has become one of the foundations of clinical practice, making it necessary that healthcare practitioners develop keen critical appraisal skills for scientific papers. Worksheets to guide clinicians through this critical appraisal are often used in journal clubs, a key part of continuing medical education. A similar need is arising for health professionals to develop skills in the critical appraisal of medical ethics papers. Medicine is increasingly ethically complex, and there is a growing medical ethics literature that modern practitioners need to be able to use in their practice. In addition, clinical ethics services are commonplace in healthcare institutions, and the lion’s share of the work done by these services is done by clinicians in addition to their usual roles. Education to support this work is important. In this paper, we present a worksheet designed to help busy healthcare practitioners critically appraise ethics papers relevant to clinical practice. In the first section, we explain what is different about ethics papers. We then describe how to work through the steps in our critical appraisal worksheet: identifying the point at issue; scrutinising definitions; dissecting the arguments presented; considering counterarguments; and finally deciding on relevance. Working through this reflective worksheet will help healthcare practitioners to use the ethics literature effectively in clinical practice. We also intend it to be a shared evaluative tool that can form the basis of professional discussion such as at ethics journal clubs. Practising these critical reasoning skills will also increase practitioners’ capacity to think through difficult ethical decisions in daily clinical practice.

scholarly journals Journal Club: A Club for Medical Education!

2015 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-45
Author(s):  
Ravneet Kaur ◽  
Nidhi Bhatnagar ◽  
Binod Kumar Patro
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Journal Club ◽  
Core Competencies ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Critical Reasoning ◽  
History Of ◽  
To Come ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills ◽  
Based Medicine

ABSTRACT Journal club (JC) is an effective and valuable tool in medical education. Critical reasoning and evidence based medicine practice are core competencies required by medical professionals. In times of today journal club offers several advan- tages, e.g. update with current literature, promote evidencebased medicine, demonstrate continuing medical education, learn critical appraisal skills and promote social interaction and debate. However, this tool remains largely underutilized. Practice of inappropriate methodology results in failure to achieve the intended outcomes. This report attempts to track the history of journal club, its types, current innovations made and role in medical education. It explores the potential utilization of this tool in times to come. How to cite this article Bhatnagar N, Kaur R, Patro BK. Journal Club: A Club for Medical Education! J Postgrad Med Edu Res 2015;49(1):43-45.

scholarly journals Oedipus to Jack the Ripper

1999 ◽  
Vol 23 (8) ◽  
pp. 497-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gillian Combe ◽  
Sara Cunningham ◽  
Anne Read
Keyword(s):  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Journal Clubs ◽  
Eastern Usa ◽  
The Media ◽  
Perceived Relevance ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Published Research

Since the first journal clubs were started this educational tool has been used by the medical profession with varying degrees of success (Linzer, 1987). Journal clubs allow trainees to review a piece of published research and discuss it with senior colleagues. They are frequently plagued by poor attendance and perceived as less than exciting, and at worst frankly boring. The enormous choice of journals compared with 100 years ago and the diversity of the media available mean that journal clubs should look towards developing in their format. Various methods have been tried to improve attendance, perceived relevance and enjoyment, such as evidence-based medicine reviews (Gilbody, 1996), teaching critical appraisal skills, and using structured review methods (Burstein et al, 1996). Sidorov (1995) surveyed 131 postgraduate programmes in the eastern USA and found the following features were associated with high attendance and continuous existence of journal clubs: smaller residency programmes, making attendance mandatory, providing food and promoting original research articles.

Principles of evidence-based medicine

2018 ◽  
pp. 3-14
Author(s):  
Abdullah Jibawi ◽  
Mohamed Baguneid ◽  
Arnab Bhowmick
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Statistical Methods ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Quality Research ◽  
Grading Systems ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Evidence Grading ◽  
Based Medicine

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is an effective tool for identifying and critically appraising quality research findings, and allowing the best to be integrated within clinical practice. EBM requires familiarity with evidence grading systems, key statistical methods, and requires a good understanding of how to review and critique scientific papers to guide the clinical practice. This chapter introduces these tools and provide an easy-to-use layout for reading academic papers in hand.

scholarly journals The New Embryology Journal Club - eJC STAR format: An equation for evidence-based education and embryologists’ empowerment

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fadi Choucair ◽  
Nagham Younis
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Journal Club ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Evidence Based Practices ◽  
Traditional Lecture ◽  
Journal Clubs ◽  
Club Meeting

Journal clubs are a valuable tool to assist learners in the evaluation of scientific literature and to promote the adoption of evidence-based practices. The Middle East Fertility Society Embryology Specialty Interest Group developed a concise journal club to enhance the engagement of embryologists and provide the structure of a journal club. The embryology journal club STAR format is a monthly super group journal club meeting in which an invited presenting “star” author exposes his group’s article to the entire embryologist’s community. In our modified approach, instead of a traditional lecture, the journal article to be discussed will be sent to participants in advance in conjunction with the STAR (Study design validity, Tackling the methodology, Analysis of the results, Reflecting the results into practice) critical appraisal checklist and a short online quiz to be completed before the meeting. The concise embryology journal club STAR format may be beneficial for embryologists to help them develop an efficient and consistent means to appraise evidence in clinical practice and stay abreast of the latest clinical research.

Research in anaesthesia

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Minto ◽  
J. Robert Sneyd
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Basic Science ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Perioperative Medicine ◽  
Limited Information ◽  
Priority Areas ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills

Clinicians need critical appraisal skills to weigh up the quality of the literature and to decide whether it has implications for their practice. Every belief in medicine is a construct created from the limited information available and carries a degree of uncertainty. A centralized approach to research identifies the highest priority areas of uncertainty so as to bring about the most improvement for the largest number of patients. This patient-centred model classifies studies into basic science, translational, and clinical research. Adequately powered mega-trials are required to bridge the translational gap between efficacy (does a treatment work?) and effectiveness (does a treatment work when applied in ordinary clinical practice?). There is a paucity of these in perioperative medicine.

Medical ethics

2010 ◽  
pp. 16-21
Author(s):  
Tony Hope
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Medical Ethics ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Ethical Aspects ◽  
Based Medicine

Medicine is a moral enterprise as well as a scientific one. It is as important to give reasons for the ethical aspects as it is for the scientific aspects of a decision. The corollary of evidence-based medicine is reason-based ethics. Two concepts central to many ethical aspects of clinical practice are autonomy and best interests....

Critical appraisal

2020 ◽  
pp. 285-302
Author(s):  
Jo Thompson Coon ◽  
Rebecca Abbott
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Worked Example ◽  
Cross Sectional Studies ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills ◽  
Based Medicine

This chapter provides an introduction to the principles of critical appraisal and explains why critical appraisal skills are important in practice and research. Guidance is provided on how to approach the critical appraisal of different types of study including cross-sectional studies, case–control studies, cohort studies, clinical trials, systematic reviews, and qualitative studies. A worked example is provided at the end of the chapter to illustrate the process. Developing skills in critical appraisal will help readers to assess the credibility, relevance, and value of the results of research and is an essential component of practising evidence-based medicine.

scholarly journals Role of Evidence-Based Reviews in Surgery in teaching critical appraisal skills and in journal clubs

2013 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. E98-E102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Negar Ahmadi ◽  
Luc Dubois ◽  
Marg McKenzie ◽  
Carl Brown ◽  
Anthony MacLean ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Journal Clubs ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills

scholarly journals Barriers and facilitators experienced by osteopaths in implementing a biopsychosocial (BPS) framework of care when managing people with musculoskeletal pain – a mixed methods systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kesava Kovanur Sampath ◽  
Ben Darlow ◽  
Steve Tumilty ◽  
Warwick Shillito ◽  
Melissa Hanses ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Model Of Care ◽  
Review Finding ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills ◽  
Appraisal Tool

Abstract Background Clinical practice guidelines commonly recommend adopting a biopsychosocial (BPS) framework by practitioners managing musculoskeletal pain. However, it remains unclear how osteopaths implement a BPS framework in the management of musculoskeletal pain. Hence, the objective of this review was to systematically appraise the literature on the current practices, barriers and facilitators experienced by osteopaths in implementing a BPS framework of care when managing people with musculoskeletal pain. Methods The following electronic databases from January 2005 to August 2020 were searched: PubMed, CINAHL, Science Direct, Google Scholar, ProQuest Central and SCOPUS. Two independent reviewers reviewed the articles retrieved from the databases to assess for eligibility. Any studies (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) that investigated the use or application of the BPS approach in osteopathic practice were included in the review. The critical appraisal skills program (CASP) checklist was used to appraise the qualitative studies and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to appraise quantitative or mixed methods studies. Advanced convergent meta-integration was used to synthesise data from quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies. Results A total of 6 studies (two quantitative, three qualitative and one mixed methods) were included in the final review. While two key concepts (current practice and embracing a BPS approach) were generated using advanced meta-integration synthesis, two concepts (barriers and enablers) were informed from qualitative only data. Discussion Our review finding showed that current osteopathic practice occurs within in the biomedical model of care. Although, osteopaths are aware of the theoretical underpinnings of the BPS model and identified the need to embrace it, various barriers exist that may prevent osteopaths from implementing the BPS model in clinical practice. Ongoing education and/or workshops may be necessary to enable osteopaths to implement a BPS approach.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document