ArticleCanadian medical education journal2022
[Clinical reasoning and simulation: facilitating hypothesis prioritization using simulated patients. Data from quantitative research].
Article in Canadian medical education journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Ladder of Inference re-visited: "Don't jump to confusions!"Canadian medical education journal · 2022Article
- Medical Students' Perception of Telesimulation Training: A Qualitative Analysis.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prioritizing diagnostic hypotheses can be difficult for novice medical students given their limited clinical exposure. Simulated clinical reasoning (CR) clinics allow students to practice focused histories with a simulated patient (SP). The delivery of clinical data by SPs can influence hypothesis generation. Objective: This pilot study seeks to test whether the transmission of key elements through SP acting influences CR prioritization among medical students. Method: The diagnostic hypotheses of two cohorts of students of the same academic level were compared following a virtual interview with an SP. The SPs in the experimental group were given a targeted script and briefing on key elements while the SPs in the control group were given a traditional script and briefing. The difference between the distributions of frequencies of the hypotheses of the two groups was determined using the chi-square calculation. Results: The students in the experimental group prioritized expert-validated hypotheses more than those in the control group. The control group showed greater variability in their diagnostic choices. Conclusion: Targeting the delivery of key elements by SPs could be a way to help novice medical students prioritize their diagnostic hypotheses. Simulated CR clinics therefore become a space for learning about CR in the absence of clinical exposure. The risk of inducing premature closure of clinical reasoning needs further research.
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.