ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis on Sex and Gender in Preparatory Material for National Medical Examination in Germany and the United States.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Virologists' Sex- and Gender-Based Medical Knowledge of COVID-19 Affects Quality of Students' Education.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2023Article
- Sex and gender specific health topics in medical student learners: pulse check eight years later.Biology of sex differences · 2021Article
- Students' attitudes toward digital learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey conducted following an online course in gynecology and obstetrics.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2021Article
- Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of an Intensive Course on Issues in Women's Health and Gender-Based Medicine.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSex- and gender-based medicine (SGBM) should be a mandatory part of medical education. We compared the quantity and quality of sex- and gender-related content of e-learning materials commonly used by German and American medical students while preparing for national medical examinations.
methodsQuantitative, line-by-line analysis of the preparatory materials AMBOSS 2017 and USMLE Step 1 Lecture Notes (2017) by KAPLAN MEDICAL was performed between April and October 2017. Subjects were allocated to one of the three main fields:
resultsIn relation to the total content of AMBOSS and KAPLAN, the sex- and gender-based share of the clinical subjects content was 26.8% (±8.2) in AMBOSS and 21.1% (±10.2) in KAPLAN. The number of sex- and gender-based aspects in the behavioral and social science learning material differed significantly for AMBOSS and KAPLAN (4.4% ± 3.1% vs 10.7% ± 7.5%;
conclusionsThe preparatory materials focused almost exclusively on biological sex differences and the sociocultural dimension in particular is underrepresented. A lot more evidence-based facts are known and should be integrated into the materials to reflect the importance of SGBM as an integral component of patient-centered medicine.
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.