standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
This record holds no relations between concepts, relations between claims or senses of a term. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | critical appraisal of evidence in medical education Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | systematic-review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: systematic-review | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Restricted to English-language publications and excluded grey literature. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The narrative synthesis approach may introduce interpretive bias. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| transfers | The review's whole object is the import of evidence-based medicine's appraisal principles and evidence hierarchies into medical education, an import it judges conceptually and methodologically problematic and then reworks into an education-specific matrix. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | the tagger's words | |
| controls | editorials without methodological content and purely clinical studies excluded before appraisal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: an appraisal of evidence quality carried out on documents that make no methodological claim · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Of 1,246 records retrieved by the database search, 84 studies met the inclusion criteria. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Evidence in medical education research falls into four types: quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, and design-based research. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Biomedical evidence hierarchies imported into medical education failed to capture educational relevance and contextual complexity. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | BEME, MERSQI, CASP and realist review frameworks were the appraisal tools most often cited, but they were applied inconsistently across the included studies. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Randomised controlled trials were frequently impractical or educationally reductive in education settings, while qualitative and theory-driven studies were undervalued despite being methodologically rigorous. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Theory is underused throughout the reviewed medical education research and appraisal literature. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The review develops an integrative appraisal matrix from the synthesised literature. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The proposed matrix scores studies on six domains - relevance, methodological rigor, theoretical grounding, outcomes meaningfulness, context, and impact - instead of reducing quality to one number. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | transferability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: transferability | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | context Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THE QUOTE STOPS WHERE THE EXTRACTED TEXT GOES OUT OF ORDER: the words that follow it in the extraction ('review educational reinforces that generalizability …') belong to another line of the page, so the sentence cannot be completed from this copy. also in: context | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 1,246 — records returned by the database search before de-duplication and screening Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 84 — studies that met the inclusion criteria and were synthesised Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 2000 and 2024 — publication window for eligible studies in the four databases searched Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.