Teaching paediatric epilepsy to medical students: A randomised crossover trial

Abstract

This is the first randomised crossover trial evaluating the teaching of clinical reasoning in comparative medical education research. Interactive lecturing and computerised tutorial were both effective in teaching observational skills and clinical reasoning. Interactive lecture is the preferred method, and may influence initial engagement in learning.

How to improve the teaching of clinical reasoning: a narrative review and a proposal

“…Of the 48 papers reviewed, 24 reported on empirical studies in which a particular approach was examined . Fourteen articles were descriptive in nature, offering only a portrayal of a particular approach to the teaching of CR …”

“…In 12 of the 48 papers reviewed, the approach taken to the teaching of CR involved having students diagnose clinical cases, the descriptions of which already contained all the patient's essential features . (Nendaz et al .…”

Video-based training improves the accuracy of seizure diagnosis

“…The lack of use of PNES videos may be due to ethical concerns on posting these videos on the web. A related method is computerised tutorials, but these methods have not been designed to aid visual diagnosis of ES and PNES 26 27…”

Educational interventions in neurology: a comprehensive systematic review

“…Reaction evaluations, assessments, behavioural change and clinical outcomes of educational interventions were limited; only 16 randomized controlled trials were identified (Table ) that attained level 2 evidence . A Kirkpatrick evaluation or reaction was recorded in eight of 16 studies (50%), a learning outcome assessment was performed in 15 of 16 studies (94%), a behavioural change was measured in just two of the 16 studies (12%) and one (6%) assessed a clinical result or outcome (Table ).…”

“…The authors identified nine randomized trials and concluded that overall the studies failed to embrace but 'the most basic outcome measures' and that there was 'a need for increased rigour in medical educational studies'. were identified (Table 1) that attained level 2 evidence [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. A Kirkpatrick evaluation or reaction was recorded in eight of 16 studies (50%), a learning outcome assessment was performed in 15 of 16 studies (94%), a behavioural change was measured in just two of the 16 studies (12%) and one (6%) assessed a clinical result or outcome ( Table 2).…”