Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42438516›Full record

ArticleMedical science educator2026

Core, Evidence Application, Research (CEAR): a Theory to Frame Separate Skills for Evidence-Based Practice and Research in Medical Education.

Rosanna P Watowicz, Rosa K Hand

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science educator, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rosanna P WatowiczDepartment of Nutrition, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH USA.
Rosa K HandDepartment of Nutrition, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1314-1964

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research is embedded into the curriculum of most US medical schools. However, there is a great deal of variety in the curricular approaches to teaching research. Further, some programs choose to focus on teaching the conduct of research while others focus on the application of research findings (i.e. evidence-based practice). This variation may lead to conflation of two independent skill sets. This investigation advances a theory (called CEAR-Core, Evidence Application, Research) that research skills and evidence-application skills are independent from one another. We evaluated the CEAR model using a pre-post design and paired t-tests at a medical school with defined curricula in both research and evidence-based practice. We found that medical student skills were low in CEAR model Core skills (approximately 42% of possible maximum score on the CEAR tool at baseline). Core and Research skills increased at each timepoint, although whether the changes were significant varied by research subdomain. Evidence-application scores improved after evidence-based practice activities within the curriculum (22.8 ± 16.4% to 30.2 ± 18.4%

Indexed as

Evidence-based practiceMedical educationPhysician scientistResearch education

Identifiers

PMID42438516
PMCPMC13355972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.