SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.14 issue4Supportive framework for teaching practice of student nurse educators: An open distance electronic learning (ODEL) contextMentors' and student nurses' experiences of the clinical competence assessment tool author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


African Journal of Health Professions Education

On-line version ISSN 2078-5127

Abstract

GROSSMAN, E S. Reporting quality of Master of Medicine (MMed) mini-dissertations using the STROBE checklist. Afr. J. Health Prof. Educ. (Online) [online]. 2022, vol.14, n.4, pp.165-170. ISSN 2078-5127.  http://dx.doi.org/10.7196/AJHPE.2022.v14i4.1594.

BACKGROUND. The 2011 Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) directive to make a research component compulsory for specialist registration has been decried in some circles as encouraging low-quality research. OBJECTIVE. To assess the reporting quality of South African (SA) MMed mini-dissertations using the STROBE checklist. METHODS. A total of 100 monograph-format mini-dissertations reporting retrospective observational research were extracted from a pool of 335 mini-dissertations. Analysis of each was undertaken using a 24-point STROBE Statement checklist. Scoring was as follows: 1 = the item was compliant with STROBE recommendations; 0.5 = partially described; and 0 = not addressed at all. Satisfactory compliance was set at 66%, thus a STROBE score of 17-24 was considered satisfactory. Data were entered into an Excel spread sheet and analysed descriptively. RESULTS. STROBE item compliance for individual mini-dissertations was at a mean of 83.1%; range 50-97%; median 85% and mode 89%. Sixteen mini-dissertations were non-compliant, scoring below 17 as per the set threshold of 66%. This indicates an 84% satisfactory sample. Only Item 5 (Key settings and locations) was at 100% compliance. The four lowest scores were for STROBE items (9) Bias (29.5%); (10) Study size/power analysis (52%); (1) Title (69%) and (14) Missing data (69%). CONCLUSION. The majority of sampled mini-dissertations, evaluated as per STROBE recommendations, are transparently reported to allow the reader to follow what was planned, done, found and which conclusions were drawn. As such the results confer a measure of reporting quality on the SA MMed research endeavour. The use of dissertation templates, commonly using STROBE-type headings and prompts, might have contributed to the good scores obtained. Importantly, areas of weakness in the writing of the SA MMed mini-dissertations have been highlighted and show which items require attention.

        · text in English     · English ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License