ArticleMedical science educator2021
Randomized Trial of a Year-Long USMLE Step 1 Preparation Near-Peer Teaching Program.
Article in Medical science educator, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- First-Generation Low-Income Individuals in Medicine: A Scoping Review.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2025Article
- From Tutor to Future Educator: Investigating the Role of Peer-Peer Tutoring in Shaping Careers in Medical Education.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Improving Student Experiences During USMLE Step 1 "Dedicated Preparation Period" via a Course Designed to Holistically Support Academic and Wellness Needs.Medical science educator · 2023Article
- Attendance of Near-Peer Tutoring Sessions Improves Academic Performance of First-Year Medical Students.Medical science educator · 2022Article
- Compassionate Off-Ramps: The Availability of Terminal Master's Degrees in US Medical Schools.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Near-peer teaching (NPT) is a peer-assisted learning method that has been adopted by medical schools as studies have reported benefits to both tutors and tutees. Published studies suggest students may benefit from NPT programs when preparing for the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 exam, but they did not use a randomized controlled trial methodology. To determine the impact of a year-long NPT preparation program for the Step 1 examination, we conducted a randomized-controlled trial among second-year medical students at New York Medical College during the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 academic years. Students who enrolled in the study were invited to complete a post-exam survey, and Step 1 examination scores of intervention and control groups were compared, controlling for preexisting academic differences and demographic traits. While the majority of students reported NPT program participation was a valuable use of their time, we found no significant difference in Step 1 scores between intervention and control groups. Notably, students identifying as female, underrepresented in medicine (UIM) or socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) enrolled in higher proportions compared to the combined M2 student body of the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 academic years. Our results may highlight the limitations of NPT programs for board examination preparation and inform the future design of peer-assisted learning programs within medical schools.
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.