ArticleCureus2025
Investigating Medical Ideas Transmitted Across Traditional Education: A Pilot Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Deep-rooted beliefs in medical education may hinder innovation and optimal patient care by perpetuating existing paradigms. This pilot study examined how medical beliefs are distributed among different professional groups within a single academic medical center, reflecting the influence of cultural and educational reproduction. Methods We conducted a small cross-sectional survey from August to December 2024 at a single medical teaching institution. Participants were physicians (n = 21), physician assistant (PA) faculty (n = 4), residents (n = 11), medical students (n = 38), and PA students (n = 41). A ten-question survey assessed beliefs about medical knowledge sources, sleep practices, biomarker utility, medication effectiveness, disease progression, and dietary interventions. Data were analyzed using chi-square tests and one-way ANOVA, with significance set at p < 0.05. Results Of 115 respondents (response rate ~39-46%), significant associations were found between professional role and gender distribution (χ² = 12.6, p = 0.013) and between professional role and primary source of medical knowledge (χ² = 28.8, p = 0.004). Practicing clinicians relied exclusively on standardized content, while students and residents utilized more diverse sources. Although differences in medical beliefs across roles were not statistically significant, patterns indicated reinforcement of existing paradigms and potential constraints on critical thinking. Conclusion The findings suggest that medical education may perpetuate entrenched beliefs through reliance on standardized content, potentially limiting critical thinking and innovation. The emphasis on standardized testing and content mastery may discourage the exploration of alternative perspectives. These results highlight the need for medical education to foster critical thinking and incorporate new evidence to better prepare adaptable healthcare professionals.
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.