Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34457950›Full record

ArticleMedical science educator2021

Randomized Trial of a Year-Long USMLE Step 1 Preparation Near-Peer Teaching Program.

Sina Dadafarin, Kristina H Petersen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. First-Generation Low-Income Individuals in Medicine: A Scoping Review.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Sina DadafarinDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7956-0419
Kristina H PetersenDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1944-6972

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Education researchPeer-assisted learningPre-clinical medical educationStudent support

Identifiers

PMID34457950
PMCPMC8368379

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.