ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)2015
An interactive web-based project to stimulate internal medicine resident reading using board-type questions.
Article in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center), 2015. 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.
- #Ophthalmology: Popular ophthalmology hashtags as an educational source for ophthalmologists, an Instagram study.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since restricted resident work hours have reduced resident participation in traditional educational activities, we wanted to evaluate e-mail-based education in an internal medicine residency. One internal medicine faculty member sent four clinical case-based questions per week to all internal medicine residents over a 10-month period (132 questions total). The mean percentage of participation on a set of questions was 69% (range, 43% to 97%). The mean percentage of correct answers on all questions for all residents was 70% (range, 15% to 100%). Seventy-three percent of the question sets resulted in an electronic interaction between the residents and the faculty sponsor. Based on an anonymous survey, 96% of the residents found the program useful. The faculty sponsor spent 60 to 150 minutes per week on this activity. We think that this program increased overall reading since it did not replace any traditional activity; further, it provided practice with board-type questions. This approach can supplement the educational curriculum for internal medicine training.
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.