Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31729989›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2019

Interactive whiteboard use in clinical reasoning sessions to teach diagnostic test ordering and interpretation to undergraduate medical students.

Fares Gouzi, Christophe Hédon, Léo Blervaque, Emilie Passerieux, Nils Kuster, Thierry Pujol, Jacques Mercier, Maurice Hayot

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fares GouziPhyMedExp, INSERM U1046, CNRS UMR 9214, Montpellier University HospitalMontpellier University, F-34295, Montpellier, France. f-gouzi@chu-montpellier.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8970-866X
Christophe HédonPhyMedExp, INSERM U1046, CNRS UMR 9214, Montpellier University HospitalMontpellier University, F-34295, Montpellier, France.
Léo BlervaquePhyMedExp, INSERM U1046, CNRS UMR 9214, Montpellier University HospitalMontpellier University, F-34295, Montpellier, France.
Emilie PasserieuxPhyMedExp, INSERM U1046, CNRS UMR 9214, Montpellier University HospitalMontpellier University, F-34295, Montpellier, France.
Nils KusterPhyMedExp, INSERM U1046, CNRS UMR 9214, Montpellier University HospitalMontpellier University, F-34295, Montpellier, France.
Thierry PujolLaboratoire d'Innovation Pédagogique et de Création d'Outils Multimédia (LIPCOM), Montpellier University, Montpellier, France.
Jacques MercierPhyMedExp, INSERM U1046, CNRS UMR 9214, Montpellier University HospitalMontpellier University, F-34295, Montpellier, France.
Maurice HayotPhyMedExp, INSERM U1046, CNRS UMR 9214, Montpellier University HospitalMontpellier University, F-34295, Montpellier, France.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRUniversité de Montpellier · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver-testing of patients is a significant problem in clinical medicine that can be tackled by education. Clinical reasoning learning (CRL) is a potentially relevant method for teaching test ordering and interpretation. The feasibility might be improved by using an interactive whiteboard (IWB) during the CRL sessions to enhance student perceptions and behaviours around diagnostic tests. Overall, IWB/CRL could improve their skills.

methodsThird-year undergraduate medical students enrolled in a vertically integrated curriculum were randomized into two groups before clinical placement in either a respiratory disease or respiratory physiology unit: IWB-based CRL plus clinical mentoring (IWB/CRL + CM: n = 40) or clinical mentoring only (CM-only: n = 40). Feasibility and learning outcomes were assessed. In addition, feedback via questionnaire of the IWB students and their classmates (n = 233) was compared.

resultsAnalyses of the IWB/CRL sessions (n = 40, 27 paperboards) revealed that they met validated learning objectives. Students perceived IWB as useful and easy to use. After the IWB/CRL + CM sessions, students mentioned more hypothesis-based indications in a test ordering file (p <  0.001) and looked for more nonclinical signs directly on raw data tests (p <  0.01) compared with students in the CM-only group. Last, among students who attended pre- and post-assessments (n = 23), the number of diagnostic tests ordered did not change in the IWB/CRL + CM group (+ 7%; p = N.S), whereas it increased among CM-only students (+ 30%; p <  0.001). Test interpretability increased significantly in the IWB/CRL + CM group (from 4.7 to 37.2%; p <  0.01) but not significantly in the CM-only group (from 2.4 to 9.8%; p = 0.36).

conclusionsIntegrating IWB into CRL sessions is feasible to teach test ordering and interpretation to undergraduate students. Moreover, student feedback and prospective assessment suggested a positive impact of IWB/CRL sessions on students' learning.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineEducation, Medical, UndergraduatePractice Patterns, Physicians'Students, MedicalTeachingThinkingFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesClinical reasoningCognitive loadLaboratory radiology testTechnology

Identifiers

PMID31729989
PMCPMC6858719
OpenAlexW2983403959

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.