Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32647083›Full record

ArticleAnatomy & cell biology2020

Infusing the axioms of clinical reasoning while designing clinical anatomy case vignettes teaching for novice medical students: a randomised cross over study.

Dinesh Kumar V, Rajprasath R, N A Priyadharshini, Magi Murugan, Rema Devi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anatomy & cell biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

5 authors.

Dinesh Kumar VDepartment of Anatomy, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8234-2829
Rajprasath RDepartment of Anatomy, Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Puducherry, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0902-364X
N A PriyadharshiniDepartment of Anatomy, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4232-9029
Magi MuruganDepartment of Anatomy, Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Puducherry, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8458-479X
Rema DeviDepartment of Anatomy, Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Puducherry, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4840-0313

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The clinical reasoning skills is often gained when the biomedical knowledge is broadened and deepened alongside exposure to patients. The 'ideal' blend of axioms of clinical reasoning and case based learning would establish the pedagogical bridges right from the first year of medical education. So this study aimed to investigate the perceived importance and efficacy of teaching clinical reasoning skills among first year medical students, as this has not previously been described. As a priori, two clinical reasoning skill sessions were conducted using clinico-anatomical case vignettes designed according to the literature regarding clinical reasoning ('serial cue' approach and hypothetico-deduction). Students were divided into intervention and control group and crossed over in subsequent sessions. Analysis was done by mixed method approach including measuring proof of benefit using post-test comparison, quantitative survey and qualitative analysis by nominal group discussion. Post test scores were compared using student's

Indexed as

Case vignetteClinical reasoningMixed methodsNovice learnerProblem-based learning

Identifiers

PMID32647083
PMCPMC7343568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.