Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Research Medical Library, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Ann Thorac Surg. 2022 Jul;114(1):327-333. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.07.104. Epub 2021 Sep 20.
Traditional journal clubs address individual articles and are limited in terms of breadth and depth of content covered. The present study describes the outcomes of a novel debate-style journal club in a multiinstitutional setting.
Participating institutions were recruited through the Thoracic Education Cooperative Group. The distributed curriculum included instructions, debate scenarios, suggested article lists, moderator slides, debate scoresheets, exams, and feedback surveys.
Six institutions participated in the study (2015-2019), consisting of a total of 10 years' worth of cumulative debates. Cardiothoracic surgery trainees participated in 10 monthly debates over each academic year. Trainee performance on the written examination in the realm of evidence-based medicine and critical appraisal improved over the course of the academic year (beginning 55.2% vs end 76.3%; P = .040). Importantly, written examination after debates revealed a significant improvement in scores on questions relating to topics that were debated as compared with those that were not (+27.1% vs +2.5%; P = .006), emphasizing the importance of the debates as compared with other sources of knowledge gain. Surveys completed by trainees and faculty overall favored the debate-style journal club as compared with the traditional journal club in gaining familiarity with seminal literature in the field, improving on oral presentation skills, and applying published literature to questions encountered clinically.
In this multiinstitutional prospective study, we demonstrate that the novel debate-style cardiothoracic surgery journal club is an effective educational intervention for cardiothoracic surgical trainees to acquire, retain, and gain practice in applying literature-based evidence to case-based scenarios.
传统的期刊俱乐部针对的是单篇文章，在内容的广度和深度方面都受到限制。本研究描述了一种在多机构环境中采用新型辩论式期刊俱乐部的结果。
通过胸科教育合作组招募参与机构。分发的课程包括说明、辩论场景、建议文章列表、主持人幻灯片、辩论评分表、考试和反馈调查。
6 家机构参与了这项研究（2015-2019 年），共进行了 10 年的累计辩论。心胸外科培训生在每个学年的 10 个月中参加了每月一次的辩论。培训生在循证医学和批判性评估领域的书面考试成绩在整个学年中有所提高（开始时为 55.2%，结束时为 76.3%；P=0.040）。重要的是，辩论后的书面考试显示，与未辩论的问题相比，与辩论主题相关的问题的分数显著提高（+27.1%对+2.5%；P=0.006），强调了辩论与其他知识获取来源相比的重要性。培训生和教师完成的调查总体上更倾向于采用辩论式期刊俱乐部，而不是传统的期刊俱乐部，认为辩论式期刊俱乐部可以帮助他们熟悉该领域的开创性文献、提高口头表达能力，并将已发表的文献应用于临床中遇到的问题。
在这项多机构前瞻性研究中，我们证明了新型的心胸外科辩论式期刊俱乐部是一种有效的教育干预措施，可使心胸外科培训生获得、保留并实践将基于文献的证据应用于基于病例的情景中。
