Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36011215›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Formative Assessment of Diagnostic Testing in Family Medicine with Comprehensive MCQ Followed by Certainty-Based Mark.

Charles Herbaux, Aurélie Dupré, Wendy Rénier, Ludovic Gabellier, Emmanuel Chazard, Philippe Lambert, Vincent Sobanski, Didier Gosset, Dominique Lacroix, Patrick Truffert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

Charles HerbauxClinical Hematologic Department, University of Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 2694 Metrics, F-59000 Lille, France.ORCID 0000-0003-4910-476X
Aurélie DupréLaboratoire CIREL (EA 4354), Service Conseil et Accompagnement à la PEdagogie (DIP-CAPE), University of Lille, F-59000 Lille, France.
Wendy RénierClinical Hematologic Department, University of Montpellier, CHU Montpellier, F-34000 Montpellier, France.
Ludovic GabellierClinical Hematologic Department, University of Montpellier, CHU Montpellier, F-34000 Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0663-8083
Emmanuel ChazardCERIM Public Health Department, University of Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 2694 Metrics, F-59000 Lille, France.
Philippe LambertGeneral Medicine Department, University Montpellier, CHU Montpellier, F-34000 Montpellier, France.
Vincent SobanskiInternal Medicine Department, University of Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 2694 Metrics, F-59000 Lille, France.ORCID 0000-0003-3083-2441
Didier GossetLille University School of Medicine, University of Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 2694 Metrics, F-59000 Lille, France.
Dominique LacroixLille University School of Medicine, University of Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 2694 Metrics, F-59000 Lille, France.
Patrick TruffertPediatric Department, University of Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 2694 Metrics, F-59000 Lille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe choice of diagnostic tests in front of a given clinical case is a major part of medical reasoning. Failure to prescribe the right test can lead to serious diagnostic errors. Furthermore, unnecessary medical tests are a waste of money and could possibly generate injuries to patients, especially in family medicine.

methodsIn an effort to improve the training of our students to the choice of laboratory and imaging studies, we implemented a specific multiple-choice questions (MCQ), called comprehensive MCQ (cMCQ), with a fixed and high number of options matching various basic medical tests, followed by a certainty-based mark (CBM). This tool was used in the assessment of diagnostic test choice in various clinical cases of general practice in 456 sixth-year medical students.

resultsThe scores were significantly correlated with the traditional exams (standard MCQ), with matched themes. The proportion of "cMCQ/CBM score" variance explained by "standard MCQ score" was 21.3%. The cMCQ placed students in a situation closer to practice reality than standard MCQ. In addition to its usefulness as an assessment tool, those tests had a formative value and allowed students to work on their ability to measure their doubt/certainty in order to develop a reflexive approach, required for their future professional practice.

conclusioncMCQ followed by CBM is a feasible and reliable evaluation method for the assessment of diagnostic testing.

Indexed as

diagnosticseducation

Identifiers

PMID36011215
PMCPMC9408718

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.