Impact of meta-memory techniques in generating effective differential diagnoses in a pediatric core clerkship.

Khadijah Tiamiyu, Amit Pahwa, Megan Gates, Amanda Bertram, Emily Murphy

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial

In one paragraph

Trial report in Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Khadijah TiamiyuDepartment of Pediatrics, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5447-9737

Amit PahwaDepartment of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Megan GatesDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburg Medical Center, Pittsburg, PA, USA.

Amanda BertramDepartment of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Emily MurphyDepartment of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe primarily assessed differences in differential diagnosis (DDx) efficacy of initial and refined top diagnoses (tDDx) and "can't miss" DDx (CMDx) between 3 MMTs (Constellations, Mental CT, and VINDICATES).

methodsPediatric clerkship students participated in two 1-h case-based sessions. The case was presented in three aliquots. Students were randomly assigned to MMT groups. Assigned MMTs were used to generate the initial tDDx and CMDx following aliquot 1. tDDx and CMDx were refined following both aliquots 2 and 3. Group DDx responses and student affective data were collected via survey. DDx efficacy was defined using pooled faculty responses and scoring was done by consensus.

resultsThere was no significant difference in scores between MMT groups, except the second iteration of CMDx in Case A (Constellations 50 % [interquartile range, IQR, 50-100], Mental CT 50 % [50-100], VINDICATES 0 % [0-50], p=0.02). Students' self-reported confidence in generating (p<0.001) and refining (p<0.001) their DDx significantly increased after the curriculum.

conclusionsAlthough prior studies identified a differential effect of MMTs on DDx generation, we did not observe a difference in initial or refined DDx efficacy between MMTs. .

Indexed as

Clinical ClerkshipPediatricsClinical CompetenceDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMaleStudents, Medicalclinical reasoningdifferential diagnosismedical studentsmeta-memory techniques

Identifiers

PMID39625192

DOI10.1515/dx-2023-0038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.