CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 146Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in ResearchHealth Sciences Research and Education

STORIES statement: Publication standards for healthcare education evidence synthesis

Open access
Gordon, Morris, Gibbs, Trevor·2014·BMC Medicine
DOI 10.1186/s12916-014-0143-0PMC PMC4243720
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence synthesis techniques in healthcare education have been enhanced through the activities of experts in the field and the Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) collaborative. Despite this, significant heterogeneity in techniques and reporting of healthcare education systematic review still exist and limit the usefulness of such reports. The aim of this project was to produce the STORIES (STructured apprOach to the Reporting In healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis) statement to offer a guide for reporting evidence synthesis in health education for use by authors and journal editors. METHODS: A review of existing published evidence synthesis consensus statements was undertaken. A modified Delphi process was used. In stage one, expert participants were asked to state whether common existing items identified were relevant, to suggest relevant texts and specify any items they feel should be included. The results were analysed and a second stage commenced where all synthesised items were presented and participants asked to state whether they should be included or amend as needed. After further analysis, the full statement was sent for final review and comment. RESULTS: Nineteen experts participated in the panel from 35 invitations. Thirteen text sources were proposed, six existing items amended and twelve new items synthesised. After stage two, 25 amended consensus items were proposed for inclusion. The final statement contains several items unique to this context, including description of relevant conceptual frameworks or theoretical constructs, description of qualitative methodologies with rationale for their choice and presenting the implications for educators in practice of the results obtained. CONCLUSIONS: An international expert panel has agreed upon a consensus statement of 25 items for the reporting of evidence synthesis within healthcare education. This unique set of items is focused on context, rather than a specific methodology. This statement can be used for those writing for publication and reviewing such manuscripts to ensure reporting supports and best informs the wider healthcare education community.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12916-014-0143-0

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In terms of reporting, the authors adhered to the STORIES statement and BEME guidance.

    “In terms of reporting, we adhered to the STORIES statement (STructured apprOach to the Reporting In healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis) (Gordon and Gibbs 2014) and BEME guidance (Hammick et al. 2010).”

    From A scoping review of artificial intelligence in medical education: BEME Guide No. 84 (2024) · cites this paper as Gordon and Gibbs 2014

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. [1]Moher D Cook DJ Jadad AR Tugwell P Moher M Jones A Pham B Klassen TP Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses Health Technol Assess 1999 3 12 10374081
  2. [2]Burgers JS Grol R Klazinga NS Makela M Zaat J Towards evidence-based clinical practice: an international survey of 18 clinical guideline programs Int J Qual Health Care 2003 15 31 45 10.1093/intqhc/15.1.31 12630799 · DOI
  3. [3]Hall JC Platell C Half life of truth in surgical literature Lancet 1997 350 1752 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)63577-5 9413475 · DOI
  4. [4]Poynard T Munteanu M Ratziu V Benhamou Y Di Martino V Taieb J Opolon P Truth survival in clinical research: an evidence-based requiem? Ann Intern Med 2002 136 888 895 10.7326/0003-4819-136-12-200206180-00010 12069563 · DOI
  5. [5]Bligh J Anderson MB Medical teachers and evidence Med Educ 2000 24 162 163 10733696
  6. [6]Carline JD Funding medical education research: opportunities and issues Acad Med 2004 79 918 924 10.1097/00001888-200410000-00004 15383346 · DOI
  7. [7]Chen FM Burstin H Huntington J The importance of clinical outcomes in medical education research Med Educ 2005 39 350 351 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02117.x 15813754 · DOI
  8. [8]Todres M Stephenson A Jones R Medical education research remains the poor relation BMJ 2007 335 333 335 10.1136/bmj.39253.544688.94 17703043 PMC1949433 · DOI
  9. [9]Dornan T Peile JS Spencer J On ‘evidence’ Med Educ 2008 42 232 233 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02997.x 18275409 · DOI
  10. [10]Gordon M Darbyshire D Baker P Separating the wheat from the chaff: the role of systematic review in medical education Med Educ 2013 47 632 10.1111/medu.12133 23662881 · DOI
  11. [11]Harden RM Grant J Buckley G Hart IR BEME Guide No 1: Best Evidence Medical Education Med Teach 1999 21 3 15 21281174
  12. [12]Prideaux D Bligh J Research in medical education: asking the right questions Med Educ 2002 36 1114 1115 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01411.x 12472735 · DOI
  13. [13]Prystowsky JB Bordage G An outcomes research perspective on medical education: the predominance of trainee assessment and satisfaction Med Educ 2001 35 331 336 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00910.x 11318995 · DOI
  14. [14]Pope C Mays N Popay J Synthesising Qualitative and Quantitative Health Evidence 2007 Maidenhead Open University Press
  15. [15]Cook DA Bordage G Schmidt H Description, justification, and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education Med Educ 2008 42 128 133 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02974.x 18194162 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [19]Gordon M Carneiro AV Patricio M Gibbs T Missed opportunities in health care evidence synthesis Med Educ 2014 48 644 645 10.1111/medu.12478 24807440 · DOI
  17. [20]Cook DA Levinson A Garside S Dupras D Erwin P Montori V Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis JAMA 2008 300 1181 1196 10.1001/jama.300.10.1181 18780847 · DOI
  18. [21]Dexter H Dornan T Technology-enhanced learning: appraising the evidence Med Educ 2010 44 746 748 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03758.x 20633214 · DOI
  19. [22]Gordon M Chandratilake M Baker P Low fidelity, but high quality: a model for e-learning Clin Teach 2013 10 258 263 10.1111/tct.12008 23834573 · DOI
  20. [23]Cook DA Garside S Levinson AJ Dupras DM Montori VM What do we mean by web-based learning? A systematic review of the variability of interventions Med Educ 2010 44 765 774 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03723.x 20633216 · DOI
  21. [24]Moher D Hopewell S Schulz K Montori V Gotzsche P Devereaux P Elbourne D Egger M Altman DG CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trial BMJ 2010 340 c869 10.1136/bmj.c869 20332511 PMC2844943 · DOI · Paper page
  22. [25]Liberati A Altman DG Tetzlaff J Mulrow C Gøtzsche PC Ioannidis JP Clarke M Devereaux PJ Kleijnen J Moher D The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration BMJ 2009 339 b2700 10.1136/bmj.b2700 19622552 PMC2714672 · DOI · Paper page
  23. [26]Davidoff F Batalden P Stevens D Ogrinc G Mooney S SQUIRE Development Group. Publication guidelines for improvement studies in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE project Ann Intern Med 2008 149 670 676 10.7326/0003-4819-149-9-200811040-00009 18981488 · DOI
  24. [29]Stroup DF Berlin JA Morton SC Olkin I Williamson GD Rennie D Moher D Becker BJ Sipe TA Thacker SB Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group JAMA 2000 283 2008 2012 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 10789670 · DOI · Paper page
  25. [30]Moher D Cook DJ Jadad AR Tugwell P Moher M Jones A Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses Health Technol Assess 1999 3 i iv 10374081
  26. [32]Wong G Greenhalgh T Pawson R Internet-based medical education: a realist review of what works, for whom and in what circumstances BMC Med Educ 2010 10 12 10.1186/1472-6920-10-12 20122253 PMC2825237 · DOI
  27. [33]Birden H Glass N Wilson I Harrison M Usherwood T Nass D Teaching professionalism in medical education: A Best Evidence in Medical Education (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide No.25 Med Teach 2013 35 e1252 e1266 10.3109/0142159X.2013.789132 23829342 · DOI
  28. [34]Gordon M Darbyshire D Saifuddin A Vimalesvaran K Limitations of poster presentations reporting educational innovations at a major international medical education conference Med Educ Online 2013 18 1 4 PMC3577919 24199272
  29. [35]Ellaway R, Strasser R, Graves L, Marsh D, Cervin C, Fink P: Community Engaged Medical Education: Systematic Thematic Reviews (CEMESTR) (Systematic review protocol). 2013, http://www.bemecollaboration.org/Reviews+In+Progress/CEMESTR/.
  30. [36]Gordon M Darbyshire D Baker P Educational interventions to improve patient safety: a systematic review Med Educ 2012 46 1042 1054 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04343.x 23078681 · DOI
  31. [39]Huwiler-Muntener K Juni P Junker C Egger M Quality of reporting randomised trials as a measure of methodologic quality JAMA 2002 287 2801 2804 10.1001/jama.287.21.2801 12038917 · DOI · Paper page
  32. [40]Tochel C Haig A Hesketh A Cadzow A Beggs K Colthart I Peacock H The effectiveness of portfolios for post-graduate assessment and education: BEME Guide No 12 Med Teach 2009 31 299 318 10.1080/01421590902883056 19404890 · DOI
  33. [41]Wolf FM Lessons to be learned from evidence-based medicine: practice and promise of evidence-based education Med Teach 2000 22 251 259 10.1080/01421590050006214 · DOI
  34. [42]Ilgen JS Sherbino J Cook DA Technology-enhanced simulation in emergency medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis Acad Emerg Med 2013 20 117 127 10.1111/acem.12076 23406070 · DOI
  35. [43]Cherry GM Fletcher I O'Sullivan H Shaw N What impact do structured educational sessions to increase emotional intelligence have on medical students? BEME Guide 17 Med Teach 2012 34 11 19 10.3109/0142159X.2011.614293 22250672 · DOI
  36. [44]Harris J Kearley K Heneghan C Meats E Kearley-Shiers K Roberts N Are journal clubs effective in supporting evidence-based decision making? BEME Guide 16 Med Teach 2011 33 9 23 10.3109/0142159X.2011.530321 21182379 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gordon, M., & Gibbs, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Lancashire (GB)
  • National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (UA)
Corresponding author
Gordon, Morris
ORCID
Venue
BMC Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2014-09-03
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
143-143
ISSN
1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12916-014-0143-0
PMC
PMC4243720
OpenAlex
W2098020237
Cited by
146
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
FWCI
6.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CLOK (University of Central Lancashire) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Association for the Study of Medical Education
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
reporting guidelines, evidence synthesis, healthcare education, systematic reviews, consensus statement, reporting quality, conceptual framework
MeSH terms
Education, Medical, Health Education, Humans, Publications, Publishing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review