Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18446414›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2008

Knowledge retention after an online tutorial: a randomized educational experiment among resident physicians.

Douglas S Bell, Charles E Harless, Jerilyn K Higa, Elizabeth L Bjork, Robert A Bjork, Mohsen Bazargan, Carol M Mangione

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Need to review anaesthesia curriculum and education!Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Douglas S BellDivision of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA. dbell@mednet.ucla.edu
Charles E Harless
Jerilyn K Higa
Elizabeth L Bjork
Robert A Bjork
Mohsen Bazargan
Carol M Mangione

Funding

RESEARCH INFORMATICS COREG12RR003026 · NCRR · CHARLES R. DREW UNIVERSITY OF MED &SCI · PI BAKER, RICHARD S. · 1986 to 2004
$11.5M
NCRR NIH HHS G12 RR003026NCRR NIH HHS G12 RR 03026-16NIA NIH HHS AG-02-004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe time course of physicians' knowledge retention after learning activities has not been well characterized. Understanding the time course of retention is critical to optimizing the reinforcement of knowledge.

designEducational follow-up experiment with knowledge retention measured at 1 of 6 randomly assigned time intervals (0-55 days) after an online tutorial covering 2 American Diabetes Association guidelines.

participantsInternal and family medicine residents. MEASUREMENTS: Multiple-choice knowledge tests, subject characteristics including critical appraisal skills, and learner satisfaction.

resultsOf 197 residents invited, 91 (46%) completed the tutorial and were randomized; of these, 87 (96%) provided complete follow-up data. Ninety-two percent of the subjects rated the tutorial as "very good" or "excellent." Mean knowledge scores increased from 50% before the tutorial to 76% among those tested immediately afterward. Score gains were only half as great at 3-8 days and no significant retention was measurable at 55 days. The shape of the retention curve corresponded with a 1/4-power transformation of the delay interval. In multivariate analyses, critical appraisal skills and participant age were associated with greater initial learning, but no participant characteristic significantly modified the rate of decline in retention.

conclusionsEducation that appears successful from immediate posttests and learner evaluations can result in knowledge that is mostly lost to recall over the ensuing days and weeks. To achieve longer-term retention, physicians should review or otherwise reinforce new learning after as little as 1 week.

Indexed as

Computer-Assisted InstructionEducational MeasurementInternship and ResidencyRetention, PsychologyAdultAnalysis of VarianceChi-Square DistributionDiabetes MellitusFamily PracticeFemaleHumansInternal MedicineInternetLearningLinear ModelsMale

Identifiers

PMID18446414
PMCPMC2517967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.