Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26604852›Full record

ReviewAdvances in medical education and practice2015

Improving medical students' knowledge of genetic disease: a review of current and emerging pedagogical practices.

Michael J Wolyniak, Lynne T Bemis, Amy J Prunuske

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in medical education and practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Pain Care Management in Rare Diseases.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Pedigree Analysis: A Team-Based Learning Activity.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2017
    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

3 authors.

Michael J WolyniakDepartment of Biology, Hampden-Sydney College, Hampden-Sydney, VA, USA.
Lynne T BemisDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Minnesota Medical School, Duluth, MN, USA.
Amy J PrunuskeDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Minnesota Medical School, Duluth, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetics is an essential subject to be mastered by health professional students of all types. However, technological advances in genomics and recent pedagogical research have changed the way in which many medical training programs teach genetics to their students. These advances favor a more experience-based education focused primarily on developing student's critical thinking skills. In this review, we examine the current state of genetics education at both the preclinical and clinical levels and the ways in which medical and pedagogical research have guided reforms to current and emerging teaching practices in genetics. We discover exciting trends taking place in which genetics is integrated with other scientific disciplines both horizontally and vertically across medical curricula to emphasize training in scientific critical thinking skills among students via the evaluation of clinical evidence and consultation of online databases. These trends will produce future health professionals with the skills and confidence necessary to embrace the new tools of medical practice that have emerged from scientific advances in genetics, genomics, and bioinformatics.

Indexed as

active learninggenetics educationmedical geneticspedagogical practiceproblem-based learning

Identifiers

PMID26604852
PMCPMC4629947

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.