Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31494596›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2019

Can clinical case discussions foster clinical reasoning skills in undergraduate medical education? A randomised controlled trial.

Marc Weidenbusch, Benedikt Lenzer, Maximilian Sailer, Christian Strobel, Raphael Kunisch, Jan Kiesewetter, Martin R Fischer, Jan M Zottmann

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Clinical Case Presentation and Discussion During ESO-ESMO Masterclass: a 10-Year Interactive Educational Experience.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021
    Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Marc WeidenbuschInstitute for Medical Education, University Hospital of LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Benedikt LenzerInstitute for Medical Education, University Hospital of LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2239-797X
Maximilian SailerDepartment of Education, University of Passau, Passau, Germany.
Christian StrobelInstitute for Medical Education, University Hospital of LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Raphael KunischDepartment of Internal Medicine IV, University Hospital of LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Jan KiesewetterInstitute for Medical Education, University Hospital of LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Martin R FischerInstitute for Medical Education, University Hospital of LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Jan M ZottmannInstitute for Medical Education, University Hospital of LMU Munich, Munich, Germany jan.zottmann@med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID 0000-0002-3887-1181

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveFostering clinical reasoning is a mainstay of medical education. Based on the clinicopathological conferences, we propose a case-based peer teaching approach called clinical case discussions (CCDs) to promote the respective skills in medical students. This study compares the effectiveness of different CCD formats with varying degrees of social interaction in fostering clinical reasoning. DESIGN, SETTING,

participantsA single-centre randomised controlled trial with a parallel design was conducted at a German university. Study participants (N=106) were stratified and tested regarding their clinical reasoning skills right after CCD participation and 2 weeks later.

interventionParticipants worked within a live discussion group (Live-CCD), a group watching recordings of the live discussions (Video-CCD) or a group working with printed cases (Paper-Cases). The presentation of case information followed an admission-discussion-summary sequence. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical reasoning skills were measured with a knowledge application test addressing the students' conceptual, strategic and conditional knowledge. Additionally, subjective learning outcomes were assessed.

resultsWith respect to learning outcomes, the Live-CCD group displayed the best results, followed by Video-CCD and Paper-Cases, F(2,87)=27.07, p<0.001, partial η

conclusionsThis study demonstrates that the CCD approach is an effective and sustainable clinical reasoning teaching resource for medical students. Subjective learning outcomes underline the importance of learner (inter)activity in the acquisition of clinical reasoning skills in the context of case-based learning. Higher efficacy of more interactive formats can be attributed to positive effects of collaborative learning. Future research should investigate how the Live-CCD format can further be improved and how video-based CCDs can be enhanced through instructional support.

Indexed as

Self EfficacyAdultClinical CompetenceClinical Decision-MakingEducation, Medical, UndergraduateEnvironmentFemaleGermanyHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleProblem-Based LearningPsychological TheoryStudents, MedicalYoung Adultcase-based learningclinical reasoningmedical decision makingsocial interactionundergraduate medical education

Identifiers

PMID31494596
PMCPMC6731854

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.