IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/eurrev/v32y2024i1p66-79_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Serious Shortfall in Clinical Research in Doctoral Schools: A Detailed Analysis of Ten Doctoral Schools of Medicine

Author

Listed:
  • Hegyi, Judit
  • Nagy, Rita
  • Kói, Tamás
  • Hegyi, Péter

Abstract

The amount and quality of clinical research are constantly increasing; however, the translation of results into daily practice is not keeping pace. University curricula provide minimal methodological background for understanding the latest scientific findings. In this project, we aimed to investigate the quality and amount of clinical research compared with basic research by analysing ten doctoral schools in Hungary. We found that 71% of PhD theses were submitted in basic sciences. The majority of physicians (53%) working in clinical institutions did their PhD projects in theoretical departments. Importantly, recent clinical methodologies such as pre-registered randomized clinical trials and meta-analysis are only rarely used (1% and 1%, respectively) compared with retrospective data analysis or cross-sectional studies (30% and 43%, respectively). Quality measures such as international registration, sample size calculation, and multicentricity of clinical sciences are generally absent from articles. Our results suggest that doctoral schools are seriously lagging behind in both teaching and scholarly activity in terms of recent clinical research methodology. Innovation and new educational platforms are essential to improve the proportion of science-oriented physicians.

Suggested Citation

  • Hegyi, Judit & Nagy, Rita & Kói, Tamás & Hegyi, Péter, 2024. "A Serious Shortfall in Clinical Research in Doctoral Schools: A Detailed Analysis of Ten Doctoral Schools of Medicine," European Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(1), pages 66-79, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:eurrev:v:32:y:2024:i:1:p:66-79_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1062798723000601/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:eurrev:v:32:y:2024:i:1:p:66-79_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/erw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.