Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36187408›Full record

ArticleThe Yale journal of biology and medicine2022

Components of Mid-clerkship Feedback in a Neurology Clerkship and their Impact on Subsequent Student Performance.

Andrew W Tarulli, Frank W Drislane

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Yale journal of biology and medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Andrew W TarulliNeurology, Overlook Medical Center, Summit, NJ, USA.
Frank W DrislaneNeurology, Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Feedback during clinical rotations can be valuable in improving medical student education, but it is unclear what effect such feedback has on subsequent clinical performance and also which feedback topics are the most important in student growth and education. We compared medical student clinical performance before and after mid-clerkship feedback in a Neurology clerkship, with evaluators at the mid-clerkship and at the end blinded to the others' comments. We found that the most important areas holding back student clinical performance were communication, interpersonal interactions, and work ethic rather than textbook knowledge, or the ability to take a history, and do a physical and neurologic examination. Further, students who had concerning comments at the mid-clerkship feedback session usually continued to have the same problems after the feedback (in an admittedly short clerkship). The results suggest that more attention should be given to communication and other interpersonal skills and involvement in the clinical service during feedback sessions and that feedback continue over a much longer period than during a relatively brief Neurology clerkship alone.

Indexed as

Clinical ClerkshipNeurologyStudents, MedicalClinical CompetenceFeedbackHumansFeedbackMedical StudentMid-clerkshipNeurology ClerkshipPerformance

Identifiers

PMID36187408
PMCPMC9511946

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.