Advances in Medical Education and Practice (Jun 2023)
A Cross-Sectional Study on Inequity and Unmet Needs in Conducting Systematic Reviews (SRMA) and Meta-Analysis Among Medical Students and Junior Doctors
Abstract
Bhagat Manku,1 Tiam Mana Saffari,2 Vinesh Sandhu,3 Ankur Khajuria4,5 1Department of Surgery, South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust, Warwickshire, UK; 2Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA; 3University College London Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; 4Kellogg College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; 5Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UKCorrespondence: Bhagat Manku, Email [email protected]: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow a transparent, rigorous, and replicable analysis to summarize the results of multiple related studies and are considered top of the evidence-based medicine study hierarchy. The COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on the unmet educational needs of students worldwide, notably those from underprivileged backgrounds. This cross-sectional study aimed to ascertain students’ and junior doctors’ attitudes on their current knowledge, confidence and preparedness of appraising and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analysis internationally.Methods: A free online webinar was held in May 2021 by the senior author and a pre-event questionnaire was distributed. Responses collected were used for analysis anonymously to ascertain students’ knowledge, experience, and confidence in preparing a systematic review and meta-analysis using a 1– 5 Likert scale using IBM SPSS 26.0. Associations were examined using Chi-square and crosstabs analysis.Results: Out of 2004 responses from 104 countries included in the analysis, the majority of delegates were from lower middle-income countries and were not familiar with the PRISMA checklist (59.2% and 81.1% respectively of the total number of participants). The majority had never attended any formal training (83%) and felt their medical institute gave them minimal advice (72.5%) in preparing systematic reviews. Among those who had attended formal training, the proportion was significantly higher in those belonging to high and upper middle-income countries combined (20.3%) than lower and lower-middle-income countries combined (15%).Conclusion: This study highlights gaps that need addressing to enhance the knowledge of medical students and junior doctors performing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Clear disparities are found in country income and the level of education. Future large-scale studies are needed to understand the rationale of working on online research projects and the opportunities available to medical students and junior doctors that may lead to medical curriculum changes.Keywords: medical education, systematic review, meta-analysis, inequity
