ArticleBMC medical education2024
Effectiveness of a report writing training program using peer review: evidence from first- year medical students.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReport writing in class provides basic training for academic writing. However, report writing education in medical schools in Japan has rarely been reported and no teaching strategy has been established for it.
methodsThis study developed a report writing program using peer review for first-year medical students consisting of two 120-minute classes. The goal of being able to write reports appropriately was established and presented to students at the beginning of the program. In session 1, students decided on a topic, gathered information, and structured their report. In session 2, students' written reports were peer reviewed. The reports were improved based on the peer reviews. The responses of the pre- and post-program questionnaires were evaluated to determine the program's effectiveness. The other reports that were assigned one month after the program were used as comparison with the reports of students who did not participate. Furthermore, the long-term effects of the program were also evaluated by comparing the results of students from the previous year who did not participate in the program with those of program participants six months after the program.
resultsA total of 106 students completed the questionnaire evaluation. The program was rated as being acceptable for the students. Self-assessment of report writing significantly improved after the program. The report scores of program participants (n = 99) were significantly higher overall and in all domains than were those of non-participants (n = 99). The self-assessment of students who participated (n = 96) was significantly higher than that of non-participants (n = 109). No difference was observed for students' sense of burden in report writing.
conclusionsThe report writing skills of medical students can be improved by clearly establishing the goals of report writing and practicing the basic skills of report writing step-by-step. Moreover, the use of peer review may enhance the effectiveness of learning opportunities for report writing.
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.