ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2022
Teaching of Clinical Reasoning Guided by Illness Script Theory.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical reasoning education: evaluating the effect of script strategy and reflective practice on nursing students' reasoning development.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- Expert assessment of ChatGPT's ability to generate illness scripts: an evaluative study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Teaching and learning clinical reasoning skill in undergraduate medical students: A scoping review.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTeaching of clinical reasoning (CR) can be facilitated by educational strategies guided by illness script theory.
objectiveTo evaluate the effects of an educational strategy guided by illness script theory on the diagnostic accuracy of chest pain in medical students.
methodsExperimental study in 3 phases, with 18 third-year medical students completing phase 3. Phases 1 and 2 had 27 students. In phase 1, each participant solved 8 clinical cases (6 of chest pain and 2 distractors). In phase 2, participants were divided into 2 groups, which distinctly trained 3 of the chest pain diagnoses from phase 1. In phase 3, after 1 week, each participant solved 8 new cases, with the same diagnoses as phase 1. Case resolution time and diagnostic accuracy were evaluated. The significance level adopted for statistical analysis was p < 0.05.
resultsIn phase 3, both groups showed improved diagnostic accuracy and reduced case resolution time for the trained diagnoses, with no transfer of learning. For these diagnoses, the diagnostic accuracy scores in phases 1 and 3 were: group 1 = 1.00, IQR [0.00 to 1.00] versus 2.00, IQR [2.00 to 2.50], p = 0.017 and group 2 = 1.00, IQR [0.66 to 1.17] versus 3.00, IQR [1.33 to 3.00], p = 0.006. Case resolution times in seconds were: group 1: 485, IQR [450 to 583] versus 318, IQR [284 to 418], p = 0.027 and group 2: 655, IQR [543 to 740] versus 408, IQR [337 to 569], p = 0.010.
conclusionThe proposed strategy seems to contribute to improved diagnostic accuracy, and it may be considered for teaching CR.
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.