Advances in Medical Education and Practice (Nov 2019)

The Quality Of Evidence In Preclinical Medical Education Literature: A Systematic Review

  • Leif M,
  • Semarad N,
  • Ganesan V,
  • Selting K,
  • Burr J,
  • Svec A,
  • Clements P,
  • Talmon G

Journal volume & issue
Vol. Volume 10
pp. 925 – 933

Abstract

Read online

Marilyn Leif,1 Natali Semarad,2 Vaishnavi Ganesan,1 Kevin Selting,1 Justin Burr,1 Austin Svec,1 Peggy Clements,3 Geoffrey Talmon4 1University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA; 2Creighton University in Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA; 3Wofford College, Spartanburg, SC, USA; 4Department of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USACorrespondence: Geoffrey TalmonDepartment of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 983135 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198-3135, USATel +1(402) 559-4793Fax +1(402) 559-6018Email [email protected]: To practice effective evidence-based teaching, the need for well-designed studies that describe outcomes related to educational interventions is critical. The quality of the literate in basic science disciplines is unknown. The study objective was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess study design in articles describing innovations in preclinical medical education.Method: The authors searched PubMed for all articles published in English between 2000 and 2017 describing interventions in preclinical medical education related to anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry. Articles were scored using a modification of the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument.Results: Of the 817 articles identified, 177 met final inclusion criteria (75 anatomy, 86 physiology, and 16 biochemistry). Laboratory, student-driven, and online activities were the most frequently reported. The average score for all papers was 15.7 (27 points possible). More than 80% reported experiences with one cohort of students and >97% involved only one institution. Only 25–49% of reports utilized a comparison (control) group. Proper statistical models for analysis of results were used in only 44–62% of papers.Conclusion: Manuscripts had a strong tendency toward single institutional studies that involved one cohort of students. The use of a control/comparison group when assessing effectiveness was seen in <50% and nearly all reported outcomes solely in the form of student satisfaction or factual recall/skill performance.Keywords: evidence-based teaching, preclinical, anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, study design

Keywords