Teaching trainees how to analytically read and synthesize complex, and sometimes conflicting, hematology/oncology literature is one of the foundational goals in fellowship education. Given the rapidly changing landscape of diagnostic and treatment information in the field, a structured curriculum that teaches critical reading of research is a vital component of this mission. To this end, hematology/oncology fellowships, large and small, rely on journal clubs both to educate fellows on new and landmark research and to teach critical thinking skills.
In the spirit of healthy debate and medical education, our institution has developed and implemented a Point-Counterpoint (PCP) journal club format for discussions of hematologic malignancy articles. This format encourages two fellows to critically analyze a selected, potentially controversial, article that presents practice-changing treatment data, game-changing biomarker or prognosis/outcome data, or novel/impactful biological data and defend opposing interpretations of the work. PCP discussions are often robust, educational, and lively and have been enormously well received by fellows and faculty alike.
In this series, the PCP structure will be translated to a written format. It will provide a forum for short (max 2000 words), well-written, articles outlining two (rarely more) viewpoints about complex decision-making challenges in Hematologic Malignancies. Each article will begin with a brief (500 words) Introduction framing the question. This will be presented in the context of an important, potentially practice-changing, clinical trial, registration trial, meta-analysis, or large population-based, registry, or cohort study. The Introduction will clearly present the treatment dilemma and identify the two sides of the argument. In the Point and Counterpoint sections, the two opposing arguments will be made and justified (600 word each, for a total of 1,200 words). Finally, the Discussion (500 words) will summarize the arguments and draw conclusions.
The PCP articles will be written jointly by two senior (2nd and 3rd year) hematology fellows with the assistance of 1-2 faculty authors.
Accompanying Commentary: Each PCP article will be accompanied by a high-level, short (300 words) commentary by a leading expert in the field, to be invited by the Faculty PCP Editors. The commentary will provide a summary conclusion of all data presented, assess the strength of each argument as discussed, and make his/her own recommendation about the best decision or the best conclusions. The expert commentary will also define unmet needs, highlight knowledge gaps, and suggest areas for future research, with special attention on areas that may be of interest for trainees.
Keywords: Hematologic Malignancies, Journal Club, Point-Counterpoint, Medical Education
The Topic Editors Neil Palmisiano and Lindsay Wilde declare that they are affiliated with the Jefferson Fellowship Program.
Teaching trainees how to analytically read and synthesize complex, and sometimes conflicting, hematology/oncology literature is one of the foundational goals in fellowship education. Given the rapidly changing landscape of diagnostic and treatment information in the field, a structured curriculum that teaches critical reading of research is a vital component of this mission. To this end, hematology/oncology fellowships, large and small, rely on journal clubs both to educate fellows on new and landmark research and to teach critical thinking skills.
In the spirit of healthy debate and medical education, our institution has developed and implemented a Point-Counterpoint (PCP) journal club format for discussions of hematologic malignancy articles. This format encourages two fellows to critically analyze a selected, potentially controversial, article that presents practice-changing treatment data, game-changing biomarker or prognosis/outcome data, or novel/impactful biological data and defend opposing interpretations of the work. PCP discussions are often robust, educational, and lively and have been enormously well received by fellows and faculty alike.
In this series, the PCP structure will be translated to a written format. It will provide a forum for short (max 2000 words), well-written, articles outlining two (rarely more) viewpoints about complex decision-making challenges in Hematologic Malignancies. Each article will begin with a brief (500 words) Introduction framing the question. This will be presented in the context of an important, potentially practice-changing, clinical trial, registration trial, meta-analysis, or large population-based, registry, or cohort study. The Introduction will clearly present the treatment dilemma and identify the two sides of the argument. In the Point and Counterpoint sections, the two opposing arguments will be made and justified (600 word each, for a total of 1,200 words). Finally, the Discussion (500 words) will summarize the arguments and draw conclusions.
The PCP articles will be written jointly by two senior (2nd and 3rd year) hematology fellows with the assistance of 1-2 faculty authors.
Accompanying Commentary: Each PCP article will be accompanied by a high-level, short (300 words) commentary by a leading expert in the field, to be invited by the Faculty PCP Editors. The commentary will provide a summary conclusion of all data presented, assess the strength of each argument as discussed, and make his/her own recommendation about the best decision or the best conclusions. The expert commentary will also define unmet needs, highlight knowledge gaps, and suggest areas for future research, with special attention on areas that may be of interest for trainees.
Keywords: Hematologic Malignancies, Journal Club, Point-Counterpoint, Medical Education
The Topic Editors Neil Palmisiano and Lindsay Wilde declare that they are affiliated with the Jefferson Fellowship Program.
