ArticleBMJ open2012
Assessing the knowledge of sudden unexpected death in the young among Canadian medical students and recent graduates: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the level of knowledge concerning Sudden Unexpected Death in the Young (SUDY) among Canadian medical students and recent graduates (≤5 years after graduating).
designA cross-sectional study was conducted by distributing a standardised, multiple choice, online questionnaire which assessed basic knowledge of SUDY.
settingCanadian medical schools and residency training programmes.
participants614 Canadian medical students (in either their penultimate or final year) and recent graduates (≤5 years after graduating) completed an anonymous online questionnaire. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The level of knowledge regarding molecular aetiology, clinical presentation, pharmacological management and modes of inheritance of six of the commonest conditions causing SUDY, including hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), Brugada syndrome, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT), long QT syndrome (LQT) and Wolff-Parkinson White syndrome (WPW), were compared between medical students and recent graduates. Questions were broken down into basic knowledge and advanced categories and analysed as a secondary outcome measure.
resultsOf 614 responses, approximately two-thirds were answered by recent graduates, who generally scored 10% higher on all subject categories than medical students. Overall, questions regarding HCM were best answered (40%), followed by WPW syndrome (32%), CPVT (30%), ARVC (23%), Brugada syndrome (21%) and LQT syndrome (17%). Questions categorised as basic knowledge were answered 30% and 39% correctly in medical student and recent graduate groups, respectively, and those in the advanced category were answered 20% and 25% correctly.
conclusionsSurvey respondents fared poorly when answering questions regarding SUDY, which may be a reflection of inadequate medical education regarding these disorders. Standardised teaching regarding SUDY needs to occupy a stronger focus in Canadian medical curricula in order to prevent more unnecessary deaths by these syndromes in the future.
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.