Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24000939›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2013

Geriatric assessment in undergraduate geriatric education - a structured interpretation guide improves the quantity and accuracy of the results: a cohort comparison.

Elisabeth Igenbergs, Tobias Deutsch, Thomas Frese, Hagen Sandholzer

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Elisabeth IgenbergsDepartment of Primary Care, Leipzig Medical School, Philipp-Rosenthal-Straße 55, Leipzig 04103, Germany. tobias.deutsch@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
Tobias Deutsch
Thomas Frese
Hagen Sandholzer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith regard to the growing proportion of elderly multimorbid patients, a sound undergraduate geriatric education becomes more important. Therefore we included the execution and interpretation of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) into a mandatory two-week clerkship at a general practitioner's office. The present study examined the effect of a guide structuring the students' considerations when interpreting a CGA on the quantity and accuracy of the documented findings and conclusions.

methodsWe compared random samples out of two cohorts of fourth-year medical students (interpreting the CGA with and without using the structured interpretation guide) completing their clerkship between April 2006 and March 2008 with regard to the content of the CGA interpretation and the grades the students achieved for their clerkship documentation, which were substantially determined by the quantity and accuracy of the documentation and interpretation of the CGA.

resultsThe structured interpretation guide led to significantly more mentions of aspects that have to be considered in geriatric patient care and to a higher documentation rate of respective positive results. Furthermore, students who analysed the CGA by using the interpretation guide achieved significantly better grades.

conclusionsAn additional tool structuring medical students' considerations when interpreting a CGA increases the quantity and the accuracy of the documented findings and conclusions. This may enhance the students' learning gain.

Indexed as

AdultAged, 80 and overClinical ClerkshipEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFemaleGeriatric AssessmentGeriatricsHumansMaleTeaching MaterialsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24000939
PMCPMC3766262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.