ArticleAEM education and training2024
Weighing the gold standard: The breadth of emergency medicine core content covered by textbooks.
Article in AEM education and training, 2024. 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.
- Development and Initial Validity Evidence for the EvaLeR Tool: Assessing Quality of Emergency Medicine Educational Resources.AEM education and training · 2025Article
- Weighing the gold standard: The breadth of emergency medicine core content covered by textbooks.AEM education and training · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Textbooks are often considered the criterion standard in medical education, but there is a growing preference for free open-access medical education (FOAM) content among learners. Despite FOAM's appeal, these resources often fall short in covering core content as comprehensively as the American Board of Emergency Medicine's 2019 Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine (MCPEM), thereby sustaining the recommendation for textbook use. However, textbooks have limitations, such as how quickly content can become outdated. Notably, there is no evaluation of the comprehensiveness of emergency medicine (EM) textbooks in the literature. Methods: This observational cross-sectional study compared Results: Conclusions: Both
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.