Trial reportBMC medical education2022
Comparison of PRISM and numeric scale for self-assessment of learning progress during a clinical course in undergraduate dental students.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self-Measure (PRISM) and a numeric scale for self-reflection in dental students.
methodsFourth year dental students were randomly assigned to each receive one interview based on PRISM or a numeric scale to self-assess their competencies at the beginning (t1), the middle (t2) and the end (t3) of integrated clinical course. Questionnaires were used to assess self-perceived benefit of the interviews at each time points.
resultsStudents in PRISM group perceived a higher benefit regarding the self-assessment of their practical skills at all time points (P < 0.05), for theoretical knowledge at t2 and t3 (P < 0.05) and reaching the course objectives at t3 (P = 0.04). At all time points, PRISM group rated their interview (P = 0.04), the applied instrument (PRISM, P = 0.01) and the benefit of the combination of both higher than numeric scale group (P < 0.05).
conclusionIn this preliminary study, PRISM was superior against a numeric scale and can be recommended for dental education to facilitate self-assessment.
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.