ArticleCureus2019
Effect of Paper- and Computer-based Simulated Instructions on Clinical Reasoning Skills of Undergraduate Medical Students: A Randomized Control Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives Skilled clinical reasoning is a critical tool for physicians. Educators agree that this skill should be formally taught and assessed. Objectives related to the mastery of clinical reasoning skills appear in the documentation of most medical schools and licensing bodies. We conducted this study to assess the differences in clinical reasoning skills in medical students following paper- and computer-based simulated instructions. Materials and methods A total of 52 sixth semester medical students of the Dow University of Health Sciences were included in this study. A tutorial was delivered to all students on clinical reasoning and its importance in clinical practice. Students were divided randomly into two groups: group A received paper-based instructions while group B received computer-based instructions (as Flash-based scenarios developed with Articulate Storyline software [https://articulate.com/p/storyline-3]) focused on clinical reasoning skills in history-taking of acute and chronic upper abdominal pain. After one week, both groups were tested at two objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) stations to assess acute and chronic pain history-taking skills in relation to clinical reasoning. Results There were 27 students in group A and 25 students in group B. The mean OSCE score for group A (paper-based) was 28.6 ± 9.4 and that for group B (computer-based) was 38.5 ± 6.0. Group B's mean score was statistically significantly greater (p < 0.001) than group A's mean score for clinical reasoning skills. Conclusion A computer simulation program can enhance clinical reasoning skills. This technology could be used to acquaint students with real-life experiences and identify potential areas for more training before facing real patients.
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.