ArticleClinical and experimental dermatology2022
Perceptual learning modules in undergraduate dermatology teaching.
Article in Clinical and experimental dermatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundDermatological diagnosis depends highly on visual skills, and implicit nonanalytical proficiency plays a key role. To correctly diagnose skin diseases, the clinician needs visual skills, and intuitive recognition plays a key role.
aimTo investigate the effectiveness of digital perceptual learning modules (PLMs) in undergraduate teaching, and how these affect medical students' learning about skin diseases.
methodsThis was a study performed in Finland, which enrolled 39 students of an undergraduate dermatology course. Online PLMs designed for dermatology, using different pictures of skin diseases were performed three times: before, during and at the end of the course. The modules provided four outcome measures: diagnostic accuracy (percentage of correct responses), a rating of confidence about the decision, fluency (response/decision time) and a list of features on which the decision was based.
resultsAs the number of PLMs and the course duration increased, there were also improvements in the four measures, with a significant increase in diagnostic accuracy [from 66% to 94%; P < 0.001; partial η
conclusionPLMs increased diagnostic accuracy, had a positive effect on learning outcomes and were easily integrated alongside clinical teaching. Considering the current era of digital technologies, we believe that there is potential for wider use of PLMs to improve visual skills and strengthen implicit learning in dermatology.
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.