ArticleBMC medical education2025
Potential for reducing confirmation bias using the OMP model "6-microskills" with verbalizing discordance: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. 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.
- Educational psychology empowers the complete utilization of mobile medical education resources: strategies and practical proposals.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe "5-microskills" instructional method for clinical reasoning does not incorporate a step for learners' critical reflection on their predicted hypotheses. This study aimed to correct this shortcoming by inserting a third step in which learners conduct critical self-examinations and furnish evidence that contradicts their predicted hypotheses, resulting in the "6-microskills" method.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, changes in learners' confidence in their predicted hypotheses were measured and examined to modify confirmation bias and diagnoses. A total of 108 medical students were presented with one randomly assigned clinical vignette from a set of eight, having to: (1) describe their first impression; (2) provide evidence for it; and (3) finally identify inconsistencies/state evidence against it. Participants rated their confidence in their diagnosis at each of the three steps on a 10 point scale, and results were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA with repeated measures for two between-participant levels (correct or incorrect diagnosis) and three within-participant factors (diagnostic steps). The Bonferroni method was used for multiple comparison tests.
resultsMean confidence scores were 5.01 (Step 1), 5.20 (Step 2), and 4.98 (Step 3); multiple comparisons showed a significant difference between Steps 1-2 (P =.04) and 2-3 (P =.01). Verbalization of evidence in favor of the predicted hypothesis (Step 2) and against it (Step 3) prompted changes in diagnosis in four cases of misdiagnosis (three at Step 2, one at Step 3).
conclusionsThe 6-microskills method, which added a part encouraging learners to verbalize why something "does not fit" with a predicted diagnosis, may effectively correct the confirmation bias associated with diagnostic predictions.
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.