Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28759606›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2017

Spaced education in medical residents: An electronic intervention to improve competency and retention of medical knowledge.

Jason Matos, Camille R Petri, Kenneth J Mukamal, Anita Vanka

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Integrating High-Value Cost-Conscious Care into an Existing Medical School Curriculum.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Residents' Perceptions of Effective Features of Educational Podcasts.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2020
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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.

Jason MatosClinical Fellow, Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Camille R PetriResident, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kenneth J MukamalAssociate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, and Associate Program Director, Internal Medicine Residency Training Program, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Anita VankaInstructor in Medicine, Harvard Medical School, and Associate Program Director, Internal Medicine Residency Training Program, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpaced education is a novel method that improves medical education through online repetition of core principles often paired with multiple-choice questions. This model is a proven teaching tool for medical students, but its effect on resident learning is less established. We hypothesized that repetition of key clinical concepts in a "Clinical Pearls" format would improve knowledge retention in medical residents.

methodsThis study investigated spaced education with particular emphasis on using a novel, email-based reinforcement program, and a randomized, self-matched design, in which residents were quizzed on medical knowledge that was either reinforced or not with electronically-administered spaced education. Both reinforced and non-reinforced knowledge was later tested with four quizzes.

resultsOverall, respondents incorrectly answered 395 of 1008 questions (0.39; 95% CI, 0.36-0.42). Incorrect response rates varied by quiz (range 0.34-0.49; p = 0.02), but not significantly by post-graduate year (PGY1 0.44, PGY2 0.33, PGY3 0.38; p = 0.08). Although there was no evidence of benefit among residents (RR = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.83-1.22; p = 0.95), we observed a significantly lower risk of incorrect responses to reinforced material among interns (RR = 0.83, 95% CI, 0.70-0.99, p = 0.04).

conclusionsOverall, repetition of Clinical Pearls did not statistically improve test scores amongst junior and senior residents. However, among interns, repetition of the Clinical Pearls was associated with significantly higher test scores, perhaps reflecting their greater attendance at didactic sessions and engagement with Clinical Pearls. Although the study was limited by a low response rate, we employed test and control questions within the same quiz, limiting the potential for selection bias. Further work is needed to determine the optimal spacing and content load of Clinical Pearls to maximize retention amongst medical residents. This particular protocol of spaced education, however, was unique and readily reproducible suggesting its potential efficacy for intern education within a large residency program.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceInternship and ResidencyAcademic Medical CentersEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, GraduateElectronic MailHumansKnowledgeLearningPhysicians

Identifiers

PMID28759606
PMCPMC5536283

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.