Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34085940›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2021

Using Virtual Patients to Explore the Clinical Reasoning Skills of Medical Students: Mixed Methods Study.

Ruth Plackett, Angelos P Kassianos, Jessica Timmis, Jessica Sheringham, Patricia Schartau, Maria Kambouri

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. From Concept to Practice: Advancements in Standardized Patient Methodology.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine
    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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ruth PlackettDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3351-1478
Angelos P KassianosDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6428-2623
Jessica TimmisDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0847-9530
Jessica SheringhamDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3468-129X
Patricia SchartauPrimary Care and Population Health Department, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3532-8140
Maria KambouriInstitute of Education, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8564-1944
University College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImproving clinical reasoning skills-the thought processes used by clinicians to formulate appropriate questions and diagnoses-is essential for reducing missed diagnostic opportunities. The electronic Clinical Reasoning Educational Simulation Tool (eCREST) was developed to improve the clinical reasoning of future physicians. A feasibility trial demonstrated acceptability and potential impacts; however, the processes by which students gathered data were unknown.

objectiveThis study aims to identify the data gathering patterns of final year medical students while using eCREST and how eCREST influences the patterns.

methodsA mixed methods design was used. A trial of eCREST across 3 UK medical schools (N=148) measured the potential effects of eCREST on data gathering. A qualitative think-aloud and semistructured interview study with 16 medical students from one medical school identified 3 data gathering strategies: Thorough, Focused, and Succinct. Some had no strategy. Reanalysis of the trial data identified the prevalence of data gathering patterns and compared patterns between the intervention and control groups. Patterns were identified based on 2 variables that were measured in a patient case 1 month after the intervention: the proportion of Essential information students identified and the proportion of irrelevant information gathered (Relevant). Those who scored in the top 3 quartiles for Essential but in the lowest quartile for Relevant displayed a Thorough pattern. Those who scored in the top 3 quartiles for Relevant but in the lowest quartile for Essential displayed a Succinct pattern. Those who scored in the top 3 quartiles on both variables displayed a Focused pattern. Those whose scores were in the lowest quartile on both variables displayed a Nonspecific pattern.

resultsThe trial results indicated that students in the intervention group were more thorough than those in the control groups when gathering data. The qualitative data identified data gathering strategies and the mechanisms by which eCREST influenced data gathering. Students reported that eCREST promoted thoroughness by prompting them to continuously reflect and allowing them to practice managing uncertainty. However, some found eCREST to be less useful, and they randomly gathered information. Reanalysis of the trial data revealed that the intervention group was significantly more likely to display a Thorough data gathering pattern than controls (21/78, 27% vs 6/70, 9%) and less likely to display a Succinct pattern (13/78, 17% vs 20/70, 29%; χ

conclusionsQualitative data suggested that students applied a range of data gathering strategies while using eCREST and that eCREST encouraged thoroughness by continuously prompting the students to reflect and manage their uncertainty. Trial data suggested that eCREST led students to demonstrate more Thorough data gathering patterns. Virtual patients that encourage thoroughness could help future physicians avoid missed diagnostic opportunities and enhance the delivery of clinical reasoning teaching.

Indexed as

Students, MedicalClinical CompetenceClinical ReasoningHumansProblem SolvingSchools, Medicalclinical decision makingclinical decision support systemsclinical reasoningclinical skillscomputer-assisted instructioncomputer simulationdiagnosiseducational technologymedical educationprimary careweb-based patient simulation

Identifiers

PMID34085940
PMCPMC8214179
OpenAlexW3146458749

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.