Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28176890›Full record

ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2017

Contextualizing the relevance of basic sciences: small-group simulation with debrief for first- and second-year medical students in an integrated curriculum.

Samara B Ginzburg, Judith Brenner, Michael Cassara, Thomas Kwiatkowski, Joanne M Willey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Antiviral Pharmacology: A Standardized Patient Case for Preclinical Medical Students.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2022
    Article
  8. Basic Medical Sciences Knowledge Retention for Clinical Practice.Advances in medical education and practice · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Views on group simulation in an integrated medical curriculum.Advances in medical education and practice · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Samara B GinzburgDepartment of Science Education, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Hempstead.
Judith BrennerDepartment of Science Education, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Hempstead.
Michael CassaraDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Northwell Health, Great Neck, NY, USA.
Thomas KwiatkowskiDepartment of Science Education, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Hempstead.
Joanne M WilleyDepartment of Science Education, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Hempstead.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThere has been a call for increased integration of basic and clinical sciences during preclinical years of undergraduate medical education. Despite the recognition that clinical simulation is an effective pedagogical tool, little has been reported on its use to demonstrate the relevance of basic science principles to the practice of clinical medicine. We hypothesized that simulation with an integrated science and clinical debrief used with early learners would illustrate the importance of basic science principles in clinical diagnosis and management of patients.

methodsSmall groups of first- and second-year medical students were engaged in a high-fidelity simulation followed by a comprehensive debrief facilitated by a basic scientist and clinician. Surveys including anchored and open-ended questions were distributed at the conclusion of each experience.

resultsThe majority of the students agreed that simulation followed by an integrated debrief illustrated the clinical relevance of basic sciences (mean ± standard deviation: 93.8% ± 2.9% of first-year medical students; 96.7% ± 3.5% of second-year medical students) and its importance in patient care (92.8% of first-year medical students; 90.4% of second-year medical students). In a thematic analysis of open-ended responses, students felt that these experiences provided opportunities for direct application of scientific knowledge to diagnosis and treatment, improving student knowledge, simulating real-world experience, and developing clinical reasoning, all of which specifically helped them understand the clinical relevance of basic sciences.

conclusionSmall-group simulation followed by a debrief that integrates basic and clinical sciences is an effective means of demonstrating the relationship between scientific fundamentals and patient care for early learners. As more medical schools embrace integrated curricula and seek opportunities for integration, our model is a novel approach that can be utilized.

Indexed as

basic and clinical science integrationclinical reasoning simulationpreclinical simulation

Identifiers

PMID28176890
PMCPMC5260942

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.