Can clinical decision support systems be an asset in medical education? An experimental approach.
Clinical decision support systems
Diagnosis
Medical decision-making
Medical students
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Aug 2023
11 Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
31
05
2023
accepted:
04
08
2023
medline:
14
8
2023
pubmed:
12
8
2023
entrez:
11
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Diagnostic accuracy is one of the major cornerstones of appropriate and successful medical decision-making. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have recently been used to facilitate physician's diagnostic considerations. However, to date, little is known about the potential assets of CDSS for medical students in an educational setting. The purpose of our study was to explore the usefulness of CDSSs for medical students assessing their diagnostic performances and the influence of such software on students' trust in their own diagnostic abilities. Based on paper cases students had to diagnose two different patients using a CDSS and conventional methods such as e.g. textbooks, respectively. Both patients had a common disease, in one setting the clinical presentation was a typical one (tonsillitis), in the other setting (pulmonary embolism), however, the patient presented atypically. We used a 2x2x2 between- and within-subjects cluster-randomised controlled trial to assess the diagnostic accuracy in medical students, also by changing the order of the used resources (CDSS first or second). Medical students in their 4 Medical students in their 4
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Diagnostic accuracy is one of the major cornerstones of appropriate and successful medical decision-making. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have recently been used to facilitate physician's diagnostic considerations. However, to date, little is known about the potential assets of CDSS for medical students in an educational setting. The purpose of our study was to explore the usefulness of CDSSs for medical students assessing their diagnostic performances and the influence of such software on students' trust in their own diagnostic abilities.
METHODS
METHODS
Based on paper cases students had to diagnose two different patients using a CDSS and conventional methods such as e.g. textbooks, respectively. Both patients had a common disease, in one setting the clinical presentation was a typical one (tonsillitis), in the other setting (pulmonary embolism), however, the patient presented atypically. We used a 2x2x2 between- and within-subjects cluster-randomised controlled trial to assess the diagnostic accuracy in medical students, also by changing the order of the used resources (CDSS first or second).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Medical students in their 4
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Medical students in their 4
Identifiants
pubmed: 37568144
doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04568-8
pii: 10.1186/s12909-023-04568-8
pmc: PMC10416486
doi:
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Case Reports
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
570Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
BMC Med Educ. 2022 Apr 9;22(1):258
pubmed: 35397598
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999 Sep-Oct;6(5):420-7
pubmed: 10495101
J Med Syst. 2014 Oct;38(10):125
pubmed: 25171920
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Feb;27(2):213-9
pubmed: 21789717
Yearb Med Inform. 2016 Aug 02;Suppl 1:S103-16
pubmed: 27488402
HNO. 2019 May;67(5):334-342
pubmed: 30993374
BMJ Open. 2019 Aug 1;9(8):e027743
pubmed: 31375610
N Engl J Med. 2006 Nov 23;355(21):2217-25
pubmed: 17124019
J Digit Imaging. 2023 Feb;36(1):11-16
pubmed: 36279026
BMJ. 2020 Sep 17;370:m3216
pubmed: 32943437
N Engl J Med. 2007 Jan 25;356(4):387-96
pubmed: 17251535
Med Teach. 2009 Jun;31(6):522-7
pubmed: 19811168
Eur Radiol. 2020 Oct;30(10):5684-5689
pubmed: 32435929
Behav Res Methods. 2009 Nov;41(4):1149-60
pubmed: 19897823
Med Educ. 2017 Nov;51(11):1118-1126
pubmed: 28585351
Med Educ. 2021 Oct;55(10):1172-1182
pubmed: 34291481
J Med Internet Res. 2022 May 10;24(5):e31810
pubmed: 35536633
Diagnosis (Berl). 2018 Jun 27;5(2):71-76
pubmed: 29730649
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003 Nov-Dec;10(6):563-72
pubmed: 12925549
N Engl J Med. 1994 Jun 23;330(25):1792-6
pubmed: 8190157
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 08;11(3):e0148991
pubmed: 26954234
Med Educ. 2005 Jan;39(1):98-106
pubmed: 15612906
GMS J Med Educ. 2019 Nov 15;36(6):Doc85
pubmed: 31844657
Lancet. 1954 Apr 24;266(6817):874-5
pubmed: 13153136
BMC Med Educ. 2019 Jun 11;19(1):194
pubmed: 31185971
Emerg (Tehran). 2014 Winter;2(1):46-7
pubmed: 26495343
Int J Biomed Comput. 1989 Mar;24(1):9-16
pubmed: 2654023
BMJ. 2015 Jul 08;351:h3480
pubmed: 26157077
Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 1984;32(1):50-6
pubmed: 6371951
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Dec 2;2(12):e1918023
pubmed: 31860107
JMIR Hum Factors. 2020 Jul 10;7(3):e19713
pubmed: 32540836
J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Jan;23 Suppl 1:37-40
pubmed: 18095042
Med J Aust. 2020 Jun;212(11):514-519
pubmed: 32391611