Trial reportBMC medical education2024
Natural frequency tree- versus conditional probability formula-based training for medical students' estimation of screening test predictive values: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2024. 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.
- Explaining success in Bayesian reasoning with the adaptive toolbox and expertise.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- Teaching common cognitive biases and associated errors in veterinary neurologic diagnosis using clinical vignettes: a narrative review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- Assessing statistical literacy in medical students and doctors: a single-centre, cross-sectional survey in South Korea.BMJ open · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundMedical students and professionals often struggle to understand medical test results, which can lead to poor medical decisions. Natural frequency tree-based training (NF-TT) has been suggested to help people correctly estimate the predictive value of medical tests. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of NF-TT with conventional conditional probability formula-based training (CP-FT) and investigate student variables that may influence NF-TT's effectiveness.
methodsWe conducted a parallel group randomized controlled trial of NF-TT vs. CP-FT in two medical schools in South Korea (a 1:1 allocation ratio). Participants were randomly assigned to watch either NF-TT or CP-FT video at individual computer stations. NF-TT video showed how to translate relevant probabilistic information into natural frequencies using a tree structure to estimate the predictive values of screening tests. CP-FT video showed how to plug the same information into a mathematical formula to calculate predictive values. Both videos were 15 min long. The primary outcome was the accuracy in estimating the predictive value of screening tests assessed using multiple-choice questions at baseline, post-intervention (i.e., immediately after training), and one-month follow-up. The secondary outcome was the accuracy of conditional probabilistic reasoning in non-medical contexts, also assessed using multiple-choice questions, but only at follow-up as a measure of transfer of learning. 231 medical students completed their participation.
resultsOverall, NF-TT was not more effective than CP-FT in improving the predictive value estimation accuracy at post-intervention (NF-TT: 87.13%, CP-FT: 86.03%, p = .86) and follow-up (NF-TT: 72.39%, CP-FT: 68.10%, p = .40) and facilitating transfer of training (NF-TT: 75.54%, CP-FT: 71.43%, p = .41). However, for participants without relevant prior training, NF-TT was more effective than CP-FT in improving estimation accuracy at follow-up (NF-TT: 74.86%, CP-FT: 58.71%, p = .02) and facilitating transfer of learning (NF-TT: 82.86%, CP-FT: 66.13%, p = .04).
conclusionsIntroducing NF-TT early in the medical school curriculum, before students are exposed to a pervasive conditional probability formula-based approach, would offer the greatest benefit.
trial registrationKorea Disease Control and Prevention Agency Clinical Research Information Service KCT0004246 (the date of first trial registration: 27/08/2019). The full trial protocol can be accessed at https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do?seq=15616&search_page=L .
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.