IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0329827.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Knowledge and preventive barriers towards conducting systematic review among undergraduate medical students of Arab countries: A multi country online survey

Author

Listed:
  • Elfatih A Hasabo
  • Walaa Elnaiem
  • Alaa S Ahmed
  • Azza E A Abdalla
  • Khabab Abbasher Hussien Mohamed Ahmed
  • Ghassan Elfatih Mustafa Ahmed
  • Mohamed Sati Shampool Abdelgader
  • Alamin Alfatih
  • Huda A Sherif
  • Omar Al Komi
  • Hajar Alkokhiya Aldare
  • Amira Yasmine Benmelouka
  • Afnan W M Jobran
  • Tayba A Mugibel
  • Mohamad Imad Al-Kassih
  • Muhamad Zakaria Brimo Alsaman
  • Ahmed Aljabali
  • Mohammed Mahmmoud Fadelallah Eljack
  • Sudan Analytics Research Group team of collaborators

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews (SR) provide the highest level of evidence in research. Medical students are encouraged to learn how to conduct SR, yet barriers to engaging in these reviews need to be identified to enhance their implementation. This study aimed to assess the knowledge, practices, and perceived barriers to conducting SR among undergraduate medical students from Arab countries. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted involving undergraduate medical students from nine Arab countries enrolled in public and private medical schools. Sociodemographic information, as well as data on knowledge and barriers to conducting SR, were collected from participants through an online survey. The level of knowledge regarding SR was measured using a set of questions, with a total score of 19. Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) were used to find the associated factors with good knowledge of SR. Results: With a response rate of 89.7%, 13,060 participants were enrolled, of whom 58.9% were female and 77.0% were studying at public universities. Additionally, 49.0% were in their clinical years. Approximately 31% had heard about SR, and 3,275 participants (25.1%) had attended training on SR. Overall, only 4.3% of participants demonstrated good knowledge of SRs. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that age (AOR = 1.111, 95% CI: 1.069–1.154) and participation in research-related activities (AOR = 4.501, 95% CI: 3.650–5.551) were significantly associated with good knowledge of SR. The most identified barriers to conducting SRs included a lack of knowledge about SR (47.0%) and a lack of research exposure and opportunities (28.8%). Regarding engagement in secondary research, only 1,567 participants (12.0%) had participated in a secondary research project, and of those, only 471 (30.1%) had published their work. The types of enrolled research projects included SR (62.3%), systematic reviews with meta-analysis (43.3%), and network meta-analysis (33.4%). Conclusion: The findings indicate a poor level of knowledge regarding SR among participants and highlight several barriers preventing undergraduate medical students from engaging in this research. There is a pressing need for further training on SR to enhance the knowledge and practice of SR among undergraduate medical students.

Suggested Citation

  • Elfatih A Hasabo & Walaa Elnaiem & Alaa S Ahmed & Azza E A Abdalla & Khabab Abbasher Hussien Mohamed Ahmed & Ghassan Elfatih Mustafa Ahmed & Mohamed Sati Shampool Abdelgader & Alamin Alfatih & Huda A , 2025. "Knowledge and preventive barriers towards conducting systematic review among undergraduate medical students of Arab countries: A multi country online survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(8), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0329827
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0329827
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0329827
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0329827&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0329827?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:plo:pone00:0329827. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.