Dear Editor,
We write in reply to the letter from Sisa [1] commenting on our recent publication in Medical Science Educator [2].
We would like to thank our colleague for their interest in our article and drawing our attention to their own work [3] on research competencies in undergraduate medical education. We are also excited to engage in conversation in what we believe is an under-considered area of medical education.
On reading this publication, we believe it is consistent with the major findings of our own study by identifying a variety of core research competencies important for undergraduate medical students.
We note the concern raised about our search strategy and potential bias from missed studies. In keeping with evidence-based practice, the entire search and article selection process was described in detail in our manuscript. The search was systematic, using a comprehensive range of key words and search terms, developed with advice from specialist librarians. All three authors regularly discussed and critiqued the search results and how inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Accordingly, the PRISMA Reporting Protocol For Systematic Reviews [4] was comprehensively followed in our paper. We strongly believe that our search strategy and article selection process are open, transparent, and reproducible and reflect identifiable teaching, assessment, and evaluation approaches of mandatory research training programs in undergraduate medical education.
A key message of our publication was that medical school curriculum developers should ensure constructive alignment between teaching, assessment, and evaluation methods and intended aims and ILOs/competencies. As noted in the paper [2], a major challenge to such research is the inconsistent evaluation and reporting of educational interventions, poor alignment with accepted standards for curriculum quality, and variable indexing of educational reports and publications. Ensuring a consistent reporting approach and labeling of educational innovations and research will allow better identification of the evidence and more robust, evidence-based teaching and learning adaptations.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Melissa Lee, Prof Wendy Hu & Dr Justin Bilszta
Declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Sisa I. Comment on: Determining expected research skills of medical students on graduation: a systematic review. Med. Sci. Educ. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s40670-020-01202-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Lee MGY, Hu WCY, Bilszta JLC. Determining expected research skills of medical students on graduation: a systematic review. Med. Sci. Educ. 2020;30:1465–1479. doi: 10.1007/s40670-020-01059-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Solano de la Sala C, Adkison LR, Endara P, Sisa I. A 3-year retrospective assessment of student research competencies: a mixed methods study of medical school graduates in Ecuador. Med Sci Educ. 2016;26:239–46. 10.1007/s40670-016-0244-9.
- 4.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Br Med J. 2009;339:b2535. 10.1136/bmj.b2535. [PMC free article] [PubMed]