Getting letters published in journals is good aim for medical students
Editor - The increasing
emphasis on evidence based medicine in the NHS
means that skills in critical appraisal will soon be as
important for doctors as clinical competence. Many habits are
established at medical school, so encouragement for students to review
and publish work should start there. It is our impression that such
motivation and support are patchy. To investigate this, we examined
letters to the BMJ over three years and quantified the
extent of medical student authorship. Authors often begin their careers
by writing letters, and letters can be a marker of competence in
critical appraisal. We chose the BMJ because it has a
substantial student readership.
We examined the letters sections of the BMJ from July 1996
to June 1999 (volumes 314-319) and recorded the total number of
letters and the number with at least one medical student author.
Medical students' letters were categorised into four
types:author's reply; critical appraisal of a published paper;
original work, which included case reports, case series, and other
results of research; and viewpoint, which offered an opinion on any
topic or article but without critical appraisal of the work.
Twenty six (0.7%) of the 3842 published letters had at least one
medical student author (table). Medical students from the University of
Newcastle upon Tyne contributed six of the 21 letters from medical
students in the United Kingdom (29%; 95% confidence interval 11% to
52%). All of the Newcastle letters were critical appraisals from
fourth year students of epidemiology and public health and were written
without coauthors. Four of the remaining 20 letters were from medical
students writing alone. Coauthors were drawn from psychiatry (five
letters); medicine (five); surgery (three); and pathology, general
practice, neuroradiology, and medical laboratory science (one each).
Two coauthors were in unspecified research posts, and one was a
hospital director.
| Number of letters from Medical School published in BMJ, by university or hospital medschool |
| |
Category of letter* |
| |
 |
| University or hospital medical school |
No of letters |
CA |
OR |
V |
| Aberdeen |
1 |
- |
- |
1 |
| Dundee |
1 |
- |
- |
1 |
| Edinburgh |
2 |
1 |
2 |
- |
| King's College, London |
1 |
- |
- |
1 |
| Leicester |
1 |
1 |
- |
- |
| Manchester |
1 |
1 |
1 |
- |
| Newcastle upon Tyne |
6 |
6 |
- |
- |
| Oxford |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
| Sheffield |
1 |
1 |
1 |
- |
| St Bartholomew's, London |
1 |
1 |
1 |
- |
| St Mary's, London |
2 |
- |
- |
1 |
| UK unknown |
1 |
- |
- |
1 |
| Overseas |
5 |
3 |
2 |
- |
*CA=critical appraisal of published paper; OR=original work;
V=viewpoint. No letters were identified as author's replies.
Letters that covered more than one category. |
The performance of the Newcastle students presents a challenge to
others involved in training. The assessment of teaching quality in
universities is in its infancy, and a department's ability to motivate
students will be hard to quantify. We believe that publication of
critical appraisal letters by medical students has merit as an informal
measure. As well as showing a skill that all doctors need, these
letters are likely to stimulate interest in research and academic
medicine. Setting out early on the quality spiral of publishing may
help to raise standards. Perhaps we should consider replicating
Newcastle's example across the United Kingdom.
Barbara Hanratty, visiting lecturer in public health medicine
Debbie Lawlor, visiting lecturer in public health medicine, Nuffield Institute for Health, Leeds LS2 9PL
Email: hssbh@leeds.ac.uk
studentBMJ 2000;08:131-174 May ISSN 0966-6494
