ArticlePloS one2025
Relationship between diagnostic accuracy and self-confidence among medical students when using Google search: A mixed-method 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the growing volume of medical information, proficiency in utilizing clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) is increasingly important for physicians. Further, research has primarily focused on CDSSs' accuracy for specific symptoms, diseases, and treatments, but the extent to which CDSSs contribute to the clinical reasoning process and evaluation of their output remains unclear. While Google is not a traditional CDSS, previous studies have evaluated its role as a diagnostic support tool, demonstrating its ability to assist physicians in retrieving relevant medical information and influencing diagnostic decision-making.
objectiveThis study aimed to assess whether using Google search can enhance diagnostic accuracy and confidence among medical students, and to evaluate how the interpretation of search results influences their diagnostic confidence.
methodsForty-eight fifth-year medical students in clinical clerkship at Chiba University Hospital were presented with ten clinical scenarios in text format. Initially, they provided the most likely diagnosis without assistance and recorded their confidence levels. Subsequently, they used Google search to revisit their diagnoses and confidence levels, using a 7-point Likert Scale. Focus group interviews were conducted to discuss changes in confidence, and the interviews were analyzed qualitatively using content analysis. A mixed-methods analysis compared the average number of correct diagnoses and confidence levels before and after using Google search.
resultsIn total, 470 responses from 48 fifth-year medical students were evaluated after excluding 10 inappropriate responses. Correct diagnoses increased from an average of 63.6% without assistance to 76.2% using Google search (P < .001), and confidence levels rose from 4.9 to 5.9 (P < .001). Qualitative analysis of higher-confidence responses identified 108 codes within 17 subcategories related to diagnostic processes.
conclusionsThis study underscores the value of using Google search in medical education to enhance diagnostic skills and confidence. The improvement in accuracy and confidence among students demonstrates the supportive role of Google search in clinical reasoning and education. This highlights the need for educators to teach discernment in information analysis to ensure optimal use of CDSS in medical training. Proper integration of these tools is crucial for developing future physicians capable of effectively navigating vast amounts of medical data.
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.