ReviewFamily medicine2026
Knowledge Syntheses in Medical Education.
Review in Family medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ideally, educators should use the best available evidence to make decisions about their practices as teachers, scholars, and policymakers. However, the rapid increase of scholarly literature in medical education poses a major challenge. Knowledge syntheses (aka reviews), which contextualize and integrate information into a single resource, have become essential tools for navigating this information overload. This article presents an overview of knowledge synthesis in medical education, starting by defining it and providing an overview of the general steps. It then examines four key types of syntheses: systematic reviews, scoping reviews, meta-reviews, and realist reviews, providing examples of each type and, when possible, pointing to reporting guidelines and resources for conducting the type. The article then addresses common methodological pitfalls, including inadequate time planning, limited collaboration with end-users, insufficiently actionable findings, and narrow search strategies. The article concludes by presenting emerging innovations, such as artificial intelligence-supported methodologies, living reviews, and alternative knowledge translation activities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.