ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2006
Exploring the educational value of clinical vignettes from the Society of General Internal Medicine national meeting in the internal medicine clerkship: a pilot study.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality Assessment of Large Language Model-Generated Medical Dialogue for Clinical Vignettes: Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Scholarship opportunities for trainees and clinician educators: learning outcomes from a case report writing workshop.Journal of general internal medicine · 2009Article
- How are patient characteristics relevant for physicians' clinical decision making in diabetes? An analysis of qualitative results from a cross-national factorial experiment.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2008Article
- Regional clinical practice patterns in reproductive endocrinology: a collaborative transnational pilot survey of in vitro fertilization programs in the Middle East.Journal of experimental & clinical assisted reproduction · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWhether the clinical vignettes presented at the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) annual meeting could be of educational value to third year students in the Internal Medicine clerkship has not been studied.
objectiveTo explore the relevance and learning value of clinical vignettes from the SGIM national meeting in the Internal Medicine clerkship.
settingThird year Ambulatory Internal Medicine clerkship at one academic medical center (academic year 2005 to 2006).
methodsStudents were introduced to the clinical vignette and oriented to the database of clinical vignettes available through the SGIM annual meeting website. Students then reviewed 5 to 10 clinical vignettes using a worksheet, and rated the learning value of each vignette using a 5-point Likert scale (1=least, 5=greatest). A single investigator evaluated congruence of the vignette with the Clerkship Directors of Internal Medicine (CDIM)-SGIM curriculum to assess relevance. MAIN
resultsA total of 42 students evaluated 371 clinical vignettes from the 2004 and 2005 meetings. The clinical vignettes were curriculum-congruent in 42.6% (n=175), and clearly incongruent in 40.4% (n=164). The mean rating for learning value was 3.8 (+/-1.0) (5 signifying greatest learning value). Curriculum-congruent vignettes had a higher mean learning value compared with curriculum-incongruent vignettes (4.0 vs 3.6, Student's t-test, P=.017).
conclusionThe clinical vignettes presented at the national SGIM meeting offer clinical content that is relevant and of some educational value for third year clerkship students. Based on this pilot study, the educational value and strategies for their use in the clinical clerkships deserve further study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.