ArticlePloS one2025
Preparing medical students to incorporate scientific evidence into patient care: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore teaching- and assessment-related factors that predict medical students' perceived attainment of sufficient skills to incorporate scientific evidence into patient care.
methodsAn anonymous questionnaire was distributed to final-semester students in six medical programs in Sweden. The students were asked to rate statements concerning the extent to which 11 national degree outcomes related to the scientific basis of medicine (scholarly degree outcomes) had been adequately assessed during the program; their perceived preparedness for evidence-based patient care; and training during the program regarding the components of a systematic review/health technology assessment (HTA).
resultsIn total, 433 students (median age: 25 years [interquartile range: 24‒28], 59% female) participated in the study (response rate: 68%). A multivariate analysis indicated that experienced adequate assessment on a single scholarly degree outcome (i.e., "Demonstrate knowledge of the scientific foundation of medicine and insight into current research as well as knowledge of the link between science and proven experience") predicted the students' perception of having developed sufficient skills in incorporating scientific evidence into patient care (odds ratio: 6.17 [95% confidence interval: 3.10; 12.3]). The educational content predictors of this perception included the teaching of HTA (11.3 [1.44; 89.5]) and training regarding two components of a systematic review/HTA: appraising scientific articles using checklists (2.46 [1.23; 4.90]) and assessing organizational aspects related to the introduction/withdrawal of a health technology (2.65 [1.05; 6.67]). The presence of hands-on, credit-bearing, evidence-based medicine (EBM)-related learning activities during clinical courses was also predictive (4.68 [1.69; 13.0]).
conclusionsThis study highlights important educational activities that prepare medical students to incorporate scientific evidence into patient care: (i) adequate assessment of key content regarding scholarly outcomes, including the scientific foundation of medicine; (ii) learning activities about HTA and the systematic review process; and (iii) hands-on application of EBM-related learning activities integrated into clinical courses.
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.