Observational studyPloS one2026
Assessment of diagnostic reasoning in acute vertigo using vignette-based tools: A cross-sectional comparison between general practitioners and final-year medical students.
Observational study in PloS one, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute vertigo is a frequent reason for consultation in primary care and poses diagnostic challenges for general practitioners. Although vestibular disorders are addressed during undergraduate medical training, knowledge retention over time is uncertain, while clinical experience accumulates with practice and may contribute to refining diagnostic reasoning. However, how diagnostic reasoning in acute vertigo evolves between the end of initial medical training and routine general practice remains poorly understood. Validated vignette-based tools, such as Script Concordance Tests and Key Feature Problems, enable standardized assessment of diagnostic reasoning. This study compares diagnostic reasoning in acute vertigo between final-year medical students and practicing general practitioners. METHODS AND
findingsThis cross-sectional observational study was conducted between January and March 2024 in a French region. Participants included general practitioners (GPs) in active practice and final-year medical students. All participants completed a self-administered questionnaire based on standardized clinical vignettes representing common presentations of acute vertigo. Diagnostic reasoning was assessed using two validated educational tools: Script Concordance Tests and Key Feature Problems. Scoring keys were established through consensus among 20 expert otolaryngologists. Diagnostic reasoning was expressed as the percentage of correct responses. Associations between diagnostic reasoning and participant characteristics, including clinical experience, consultation volume, vertigo-specific continuing medical education, and self-reported confidence in vertigo management, were analyzed using univariate and multivariate models. A total of 265 participants were included, comprising 173 general practitioners and 92 final-year medical students. Medical students achieved significantly higher diagnostic reasoning scores than GPs (61.0% vs. 54.0%, p < 0.001). Among GPs, higher scores were associated with lower daily consultation volumes (<30 patients/day), prior vertigo-specific continuing medical education, and greater self-reported confidence in the management of acute vertigo. In multivariate analysis, vertigo-specific continuing medical education (β = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.03-1.51; p = 0.041) and self-reported confidence (β = 1.45; 95% CI, 0.54-2.36; p = 0.002) remained independently associated with better diagnostic reasoning.
conclusionIn this study, final-year medical students outperformed practicing general practitioners on vignette-based assessments of diagnostic reasoning in acute vertigo. The observed difference may be related to differences in recent theoretical exposure and training background. Targeted continuing medical education could be further evaluated as a strategy to support diagnostic reasoning and confidence among general practitioners in primary care.
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.