Trial reportMedical education2020
Worked examples for teaching electrocardiogram interpretation: Salient or discriminatory features?
Trial report in Medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Education Research: EEG Instruction: Findings from a Scoping Review.Neurology. Education · 2025Article
- Reducing Nurses' Barriers to Reporting Adverse Events Using a WeChat-Based Cognitive Load Training Platform: An Open-Label, Randomized Controlled Trial.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
- Qualitative Study on Cognitive Load in Epilepsy Specialist Nurse Training in Northeast China: A Phenomenological Study Among Ten Trained Nurses.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Using cognitive load theory to tailor clinical reasoning training for preclinical medical students.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- IMPROVING ECG LEARNING AND COMPETENCE AMONG MEDICAL AND POSTGRADUATE TRAINEES: SCOPING REVIEW OF AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.Annals of Ibadan postgraduate medicine · 2024Article
- Surfing the clinical trials of ECG teaching to medical students: A systematic review.Journal of education and health promotion · 2023Review
- A plea for contrastive instructions.Medical education · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextCognitive load theory states that one way to optimise learning is to decrease extraneous cognitive load, defined as information not relevant to task completion. Worked examples, which show the learner the logic behind the solving of a problem, can decrease extraneous load. However, there is little research to guide the optimal formatting of worked examples.
methodsIn a crossover design, first-year medical students were randomised to worked examples of bradycardias with salient features first and tachycardias with discriminatory features second (n = 33) or worked examples of bradycardias with discriminatory features first and tachycardias with salient features second (n = 32). After each learning phase, participants completed a testing phase. Diagnostic accuracy and reported cognitive load were compared between the two worked example formats, as well as with data for a group of historical controls, consisting of medical students interpreting electrocardiogram rhythms without worked examples. Each module concluded with a questionnaire in which the learner was asked to rate his or her perceptions of the difficulty of the core content, the clarity with which the information was presented, and perceived learning.
resultsWorked examples highlighting salient and discriminatory features were associated with similar levels of diagnostic accuracy (56% and 60%, respectively; P = .32). Both worked example conditions were associated with higher diagnostic accuracy than was found in historical controls (P < .0001). There was no difference in the extraneous load experienced between worked examples highlighting salient features and those highlighting discriminatory features (12.5 ± 6.1 and 11.9 ± 6.1, respectively; P = .52). Participants reported greater intrinsic load in the worked examples highlighting salient rather than discriminatory features (17.1 ± 4.9 and 15.5 ± 4.6, respectively; P = .01).
conclusionsDiscriminatory feature-based worked examples were associated with less intrinsic cognitive load, but this did not translate into any meaningful difference in diagnostic performance. Instruction with worked examples improved diagnostic performance regardless of whether salient or discriminatory features were highlighted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31958177What 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.