Knowledge syntheses in medical education: A bibliometric analysis

<p>This is the raw data for the manuscript&nbsp;&quot;Knowledge syntheses in medical education: A bibliometric analysis&quot; by Maggio, Costello, Norton, Driessen, and Artino. The data contain&nbsp;the citations, including the DOI,&nbsp;PMID, and all author locations for all 963 knowledge syntheses included in the study. This study has also been published in a peer reviewed journal:&nbsp;</p> <p>Maggio LA, Costello JA, Norton C, Driessen EW, Artino Jr AR. <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40037-020-00626-9">Knowledge syntheses in medical education: A bibliometric analysis</a>. <em>Perspectives on Medical Education</em>. 2020 Oct 22:1-9.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The abstract for the study is as follows:</p> <p><strong>Purpose</strong>&nbsp;This bibliometric analysis maps the landscape of knowledge syntheses in medical education. It provides scholars with a roadmap for understanding where the field has been and where it might go in the future. In particular, this analysis details the venues in which knowledge syntheses are published, the types of syntheses conducted, citation rates they produce, and altmetric attention they garner.</p> <p><strong>Method</strong>&nbsp;In 2020, the authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of knowledge syntheses published in 14 core medical education journals from 1999 to 2019. To characterize the studies, metadata was extracted from Pubmed, Web of Science, Altmetrics Explorer, and Unpaywall.</p> <p><strong>Results</strong>&nbsp;The authors analyzed 963 knowledge syntheses representing 3.1% of total articles published (n=30,597). On average, 45.9 knowledge syntheses were published annually (SD=35.85, Median=33), and there was an overall 2,620% increase in the number of knowledge syntheses published from 1999 to 2019. The journals each published, on average, a total of 68.8 knowledge syntheses (SD=67.2, Median=41) with&nbsp;<em>Medical Education</em>&nbsp;publishing the most (n=189; 19%). Twenty-one knowledge synthesis types were identified; the most prevalent types were systematic reviews (n=341; 35.4%) and scoping reviews (n=88; 9.1%). Knowledge syntheses were cited an average of 53.80 times (SD=107.12, Median=19) and received a mean Altmetric Attention Score of 14.12 (SD=37.59, Median=6).</p> <p><strong>Conclusions</strong>&nbsp;There has been considerable growth in knowledge syntheses in medical education over the past 20 years, contributing to medical education&rsquo;s evidence base. Beyond this increase in volume, researchers have introduced methodological diversity in these publications, and the community has taken to social media to share knowledge syntheses. Implications for the field, including the impact of synthesis types and their relationship to knowledge translation, are discussed.</p>