ReviewCureus2025
Improving Acute Care Preparedness Amongst Medical Students: A Systematic Review.
Review 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
Evidence suggests that there is inadequate preparation for acute care within the undergraduate medical curriculum. Although previous attempts have been made to address this concern, a lack of formal evaluation of intervention effectiveness limits their utility. This review aimed to identify educational interventions seeking to prepare medical students for acute care and evaluate their effectiveness. MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science were systematically searched. Primary research studies published between 2000 and 2020 and reporting changes in outcomes related to medical student preparation for acute care were included. Study outcomes were described as either highly effective, effective, ineffective, negative or variable. Study quality was appraised using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Studies with an MERSQI score of ≥14 were classed as high-quality. Overall, 72 studies were included in this review. The majority were single-group pre- and post-test studies (n=39, 54.2%) and none measured changes in student behaviour or patient/healthcare outcomes. Courses, clerkships, and simulation were found to be the most effective interventions. All Clerkship studies measuring improvements in acute care skills were effective or highly effective. Mean MERSQI score was 12.4 (range=7.8-15.5, SD=1.7) and 18 studies (25%) were classed as high-quality. This review favours the use of clerkships, as well as courses and simulation. However, considerable heterogeneity and numerous study limitations prevent firm conclusions from being drawn. Future high-quality studies, especially those measuring behavioural changes and patient/healthcare outcomes, are subsequently needed. Reviews with a more focused area of research, those assessing long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness, would additionally prove beneficial.
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.