ArticleBMC medical education2025
Reading and skimming clinical information: insights from experiments examining medical students' eye movement behaviour.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReading times are shorter and comprehension is poorer during skim-reading compared to more careful reading for comprehension. Here we provide a novel examination of the effect of skimming on medical students’ reading of clinical texts. Three eye tracking experiments are reported. Each experiment manipulates the reading task (reading for comprehension, skimming for gist) and a key characteristic of the text (legibility, context, accuracy). Together the experiments provide key insights into how medical students read and skim clinical information.
methodsParticipants were fourth year medical students. In each experiment participants read for comprehension and skimmed for gist. Experiment 1 examined the effect of font legibility, comparing reading behaviour for vignettes presented in a legible vs. less legible font (n = 28). Experiment 2 examined the effect of contextual cues, comparing reading of clinical statements that were preceded by a neutral cue vs. a cue stating the diagnosis (n = 28). Experiment 3 examined the integration of the text with prior knowledge by comparing reading behaviour for statements that were accurate or inaccurate (n = 20). Eye movements were recorded to determine how reading processes differed according to reading strategy and the text manipulations.
resultsAcross all three experiments skim-reading resulted in eye movement indices consistent with more superficial processing of text (shorter first-pass and re-reading times, ps < 0.001). There were fewer and shorter eye fixations during skimming compared to reading for comprehension (ps < 0.001) (Experiment 1). A less legible font was found to slow down reading (ps < 0.001), but did so similarly for skimming and reading for comprehension (Experiment 1). There were smaller effects of context (Experiment 2) and text accuracy (Experiment 3) for re-reading measures during skimming, indicating that skimming produces poorer integration of text with patient information or clinical knowledge.
conclusionsThe eye tracking results are consistent with previous work indicating that levels of comprehension can be reduced during skim-reading. The study also demonstrates that legibility and contextual cues (e.g., diagnosis sub-headings) are important for efficient reading. Especially when learning key concepts or making key decisions, medical students and healthcare practitioners should be aware that content may be missed or only superficially processed during skimming.
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.