ArticleCanadian medical education journal2025
[Diagnostic hypothesis generation through engaged peer observation: a quantitative descriptive study in a clinical simulation context].
Article in Canadian medical education journal, 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.
- Embracing the next frontier in assessment.Canadian medical education journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Learning clinical reasoning (CR) requires practice in a variety of educational settings. As part of the clinical simulation sessions at the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Medicine, pre-clerkship students are paired in dyads to increase the number of practical clinical cases before the clerkship. One student plays the role of a Clinical Student (CS) and the other alternates as a Student Observer (SO). This quantitative descriptive study aims to compare the diagnostic hypothesis generation by SOs with that of CSs to support the usefulness of engaged peer observation as a CR learning strategy in clinical simulation settings. Methods: Following an interview with a simulated patient, CSs and SOs were asked to generate two diagnostic hypotheses in an electronic form. Responses were compiled, categorized, and compared in terms of equivalent diagnostic hypotheses within the same dyad. The difference in frequency distribution of equivalent hypotheses was statistically analyzed using a chi-square calculation. Results: The percentage of dyads with at least one equivalent diagnostic hypothesis ranged from 83% to 100%, depending on the scenario. The number of equivalent hypotheses between SOs and CSs was statistically significant ( Conclusion: SOs appear to be able to generate diagnostic hypotheses similar to those of CSs. The results support the use of engaged peer observation as a learning strategy for CR in clinical simulation settings in pre-clerkship medical education.
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.