ArticleBMC medical education2026
Near-peer learning in neurology residency: a 6-year experience comparing knowledge gains across cerebrovascular, electromyography, and electroencephalography modules.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNear-peer learning (NPL) may address challenges in neurology residency training, but its comparative efficacy across subspecialties with different cognitive demands remains unclear.
methodsThe authors conducted a six-year longitudinal study evaluating a structured NPL curriculum within a neurology residency program. The study included residents who participated in three modules: cerebrovascular disease (CVD), electromyography (EMG), and electroencephalography (EEG). Knowledge gains were assessed using pre- and post-course examinations. Linear mixed-effects models with Bonferroni correction were used for longitudinal comparisons across participation times. Participant feedback was collected via a structured questionnaire.
resultsAmong 117 enrollments, first-time participants showed significant improvements in all modules (all p < 0.001), with the largest gain in EEG (mean improvement 22.79 points). After correcting for repeated measures, only the EEG module demonstrated a significant advantage of the first session over repeat sessions (adjusted p < 0.001). For CVD and EMG, no significant differences in gain magnitude were observed across participation times (all adjusted p > 0.05). Supplementary analysis of residents who completed three years confirmed no statistically significant decline in any module. Questionnaire responses (n = 46) indicated high satisfaction with the NPL curriculum.
conclusionThis study supports that NPL can be a useful component of neurology residency training, particularly for initial knowledge acquisition in complex, low-exposure topics such as EEG. The added value of repeated NPL sessions is domain-dependent, and curriculum design may be tailored accordingly.
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.