Zisblatt Lara, Grantham Ashley E, Dillman Dawn, DiLorenzo Amy N, MacEachern Mark P, Juve Amy Miller, Peoples Emily E, Chen Fei
J Educ Perioper Med. 2020 Jan 1;22(1):E637. eCollection 2020 Jan-Mar.
Through a critical appraisal of the education research in anesthesiology, this article enables those interested in the field to read the high-quality articles for the past year and possibly implement these evidence-based interventions and concepts into practice. This study reviews and appraises all medical education studies published in 2018 in anesthesiology and summarizes the highest-rated articles evaluated.
Three Ovid MEDLINE databases, Embase.com, ERIC, PsycINFO, and PubMed were searched followed by a manual review of articles published in the highest impact factor journals in both the fields of anesthesiology and medical education. Abstracts were double-screened and quantitative articles subsequently scored by 3 randomly assigned raters. Qualitative studies were scored by 2 raters. Two different rubrics were used for scoring quantitative and qualitative studies, both allowed for scores ranging from 1 to 25.
A total of 888 unique citations were identified through the search criteria. Of those, 39 articles met the inclusion criteria (36 quantitative and 3 qualitative). The top 11 quantitative papers and the top qualitative paper with the highest scores were reported and summarized.
As the second article to critically review the literature available for education in anesthesiology, we are able to add to this annual series to help further disseminate the articles of the highest quality in anesthesiology education. Because this is only the second year, we can only report on initial suggestions of trends that we hope will help guide future research.
通过对麻醉学教育研究的批判性评估，本文使该领域的相关人员能够阅读过去一年的高质量文章，并有可能将这些基于证据的干预措施和概念应用于实践。本研究回顾并评估了2018年发表的所有麻醉学医学教育研究，并总结了评估得分最高的文章。
检索了三个Ovid MEDLINE数据库、Embase.com、教育资源信息中心、心理学文摘数据库和PubMed，随后对麻醉学和医学教育领域影响因子最高的期刊上发表的文章进行了人工筛选。摘要进行了双盲筛选，定量文章随后由3名随机分配的评分者打分。定性研究由2名评分者打分。定量和定性研究使用了两种不同的评分标准，分数范围均为1至25分。
通过检索标准共识别出888条独特的引文。其中，39篇文章符合纳入标准（36篇定量研究和3篇定性研究）。报告并总结了得分最高的前11篇定量论文和顶级定性论文。
作为第二篇批判性回顾麻醉学教育可用文献的文章，我们能够为这个年度系列增添内容，以帮助进一步传播麻醉学教育领域的高质量文章。由于这只是第二年，我们只能报告一些初步的趋势建议，希望能为未来的研究提供指导。
