ArticleBMC medical education2017
Predicting medical students who will have difficulty during their clinical training.
Article in BMC medical education, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of Hand Gestures and the Hand as Foot Teaching Method Compared to Traditional Methods in Medical and Dental Education: A Scoping Review.Journal of dental education · 2026Article
- Enhancing Clinical Medical Education Through Hand Gesture Analogy Teaching: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- [Failure of second cycle medical students at the faculty of medicine in Nouakchott: predictive factors and suggested resolutions].The Pan African medical journal · 2020Observational
- Self-confidence and clinical skills: the case of students who study medicine in English in a non-English speaking setting.Irish journal of medical science · 2019Article
- Efficient undergraduate learning of liver transplant: building a framework for teaching subspecialties to medical students.BMC medical education · 2018Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to classify the difficulties students had passing their clinical attachments, and explore factors which might predict these problems.
methodsWe analysed data from regular student progress meetings 2008-2012. Problem categories were: medical knowledge, professional behaviour and clinical skills. For each category we then undertook a predictive risk analysis.
resultsOut of 561 students, 203 were found to have one or more problem category and so were defined as having difficulties. Prevalences of the categories were: clinical skills (67%), knowledge (59%) and professional behaviour (29%). A higher risk for all categories was associated with: male gender, international entry and failure in the first half of the course, but not with any of the minority ethnic groups. Professional and clinical skills problems were associated with lower marks in the Undergraduate Medical Admissions Test paper 2. Clinical skills problems were less likely in graduate students.
conclusionsIn our students, difficulty with clinical skills was just as prevalent as medical knowledge deficit. International entry students were at highest risk for clinical skills problems probably because they were not selected by our usual criteria and had shorter time to become acculturated.
Indexed as
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.