ArticleBMJ open2025
Assessing statistical literacy in medical students and doctors: a single-centre, cross-sectional survey in South Korea.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A clinically contextualized, hands-on biostatistics workshop for rheumatology fellows-in-training: a quasi-experimental pre-post educational intervention study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Digital health literacy in medical education: a scoping review of current challenges and development strategies.BMC medical education · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveHealthcare professionals must possess statistical literacy to provide evidence-based care and engage patients in decision-making. However, there have been concerns about healthcare professionals' inadequate understanding of health statistics. As an initial step in addressing the issue, we assessed the statistical literacy of medical students and doctors in South Korea by evaluating their comprehension of four statistical concepts: (a) single-event probability, (b) relative risk reduction, (c) positive predictive value and (d) 5-year survival rate.
designCross-sectional survey study.
settingThe survey was conducted from October 2018 to January 2019 in one medical school and its affiliated teaching hospital in Seoul, South Korea.
participants303 medical students from all six grades and 291 doctors from various specialties. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the correct answer rate for each question. The secondary outcome measure was the mean number of correct answers across the four statistical literacy questions, calculated for each individual.
resultsThe correct answer rates for basic numeracy questions were close to 100%. Regarding statistical literacy, 95.5% and 83.2% of the participants accurately understood single-event probability and relative risk reduction, respectively. However, only 49.3% and 49.2% of the participants accurately understood the positive predictive value and 5-year survival rate, respectively. The correct answer rates for the question about the 5-year survival rate differed significantly between students (40.9%) and doctors (57.7%) (p<0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the correct answer rates for other questions, regardless of the student's grade level or the doctor's specialty.
conclusionsMedical students and doctors have weaker statistical literacy than their basic numeracy. Therefore, it is essential to implement medical education and professional development programmes that focus on improving their statistical literacy. These programmes should specifically address measures of medical test accuracy and the distinction between a 5-year survival rate and mortality.
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.