Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32555416›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2020

Training the next generation of genomic medicine providers: trends in medical education and national assessment.

Shoumita Dasgupta, Gerald L Feldman, Cynthia M Powell, Helga V Toriello, Judith Westman, William G Wilson, Darrel J Waggoner

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The effect of genetic education on the referral of patients to genetic evaluation: Findings from a national survey of nephrologists.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Shoumita DasguptaDepartment of Medicine, Biomedical Genetics Section, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. dasgupta@bu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1473-7244
Gerald L FeldmanCenter for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, Wayne State University, School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA.
Cynthia M PowellDepartments of Pediatrics and Genetics, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Helga V TorielloDepartment of Pediatrics and Human Development, Michigan State University, College of Human Medicine, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Judith WestmanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Human Genetics, The Ohio State University, College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
William G WilsonDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Virginia, School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Darrel J WaggonerDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the utilization of genetics on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE®).

methodsA team of clinical genetics educators performed an analysis of the representation of genetics content on a robust sample of recent Step 1, Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK), and Step 3 examination forms. The content of each question was mapped to curriculum recommendations from the peer reviewed Association of Professors of Human and Medical Genetics white paper, Medical School Core Curriculum in Genetics, and the USMLE Content Outline.

resultsThe committee identified 13.4%, 10.4%, and 4.4% of Steps 1, 2 and 3 respectively, as having genetics content. The genetics content of the exams became less pertinent to the questions from Step 1 to 3, with decreasing genetics content by exam and increasing percentages of questions identified as having genetics content in the distractors only.

conclusionThe current distribution of genetics in USMLE licensing examinations reflects traditional curricular approaches with genetics as a basic science course in the early years of medical school and de-emphasizes clinical relevance of the field. These observations support the notion that further integration is required to move genetics into the clinical curriculum of medical schools and the clinical content of USMLE Step exams.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalEducation, Medical, UndergraduateClinical CompetenceCurriculumEducational MeasurementGenomicsHumansLicensure, MedicalUnited Statesclinical geneticsmedical geneticsmedical genetics curriculumundergraduate medical educationUnited States Medical Licensing Examination

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.