Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32171297›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2020

Learning clinical reasoning: how virtual patient case format and prior knowledge interact.

Jan Kiesewetter, Michael Sailer, Valentina M Jung, Regina Schönberger, Elisabeth Bauer, Jan M Zottmann, Inga Hege, Hanna Zimmermann, Frank Fischer, Martin R Fischer

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

10 authors.

Jan KiesewetterInstitute for Medical Education, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. jan.kiesewetter@med.lmu.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8165-402X
Michael SailerEducation and Educational Psychology, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Valentina M JungInstitute for Medical Education, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Regina SchönbergerInstitute for Medical Education, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Elisabeth BauerEducation and Educational Psychology, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Jan M ZottmannInstitute for Medical Education, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Inga HegeMedical School, University Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Hanna ZimmermannDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Frank FischerEducation and Educational Psychology, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Martin R FischerInstitute for Medical Education, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie 16DHL1039
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionClinical reasoning has been fostered with varying case formats including the use of virtual patients. Existing literature points to different conclusions regarding which format is most beneficial for learners with diverse levels of prior knowledge. We designed our study to better understand which case format affects clinical reasoning outcomes and cognitive load, dependent on medical students' prior knowledge.

methodsOverall, 142 medical students (3 rd to 6 th year) were randomly assigned to either a whole case or serial cue case format. Participants worked on eight virtual patients in their respective case format. Outcomes included diagnostic accuracy, knowledge, and cognitive load.

resultsWe found no effect of case format on strategic knowledge scores pre- vs post-test (whole case learning gain = 3, 95% CI. -.01 to .01, serial cue learning gain = 3, 95% CI. -.06 to .00 p = .50). In both case formats, students with high baseline knowledge (determined by median split on the pre-test in conceptual knowledge) benefitted from learning with virtual patients (learning gain in strategic knowledge = 5, 95% CI .03 to .09, p = .01) while students with low prior knowledge did not (learning gain = 0, 95%CI -.02 to .02). We found no difference in diagnostic accuracy between experimental conditions (difference = .44, 95% CI -.96 to .08, p = .22), but diagnostic accuracy was higher for students with high prior knowledge compared to those with low prior knowledge (difference = .8, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.35, p < .01). Students with low prior knowledge experienced higher extraneous cognitive load than students with high prior knowledge (multiple measurements, p < .01).

conclusionsThe whole case and serial cue case formats alone did not affect students' knowledge gain or diagnostic accuracy. Students with lower knowledge experienced increased cognitive load and appear to have learned less from their interaction with virtual patients. Cognitive load should be taken into account when attempting to help students learn clinical reasoning with virtual patients, especially for students with lower knowledge.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceClinical ReasoningPatient SimulationProblem-Based LearningCognitionCuesEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFemaleHumansMaleStudents, MedicalYoung AdultCase formatsClinical reasoningInstructional materials/methodsVirtual patients

Identifiers

PMID32171297
PMCPMC7071577

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.