The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
Cardiac auscultatory skills of internal medicine and family practice trainees. A comparison of diagnostic proficiency
Abstract
CONTEXT: Medical educators have had a growing sense that proficiency in physical diagnostic skills is waning, but few data have examined the question critically. OBJECTIVE, DESIGN, AND SETTING: To compare the cardiac auscultatory proficiency of medical students and physicians in training. A multicenter cross-sectional assessment of students and house staff. A total of 8 internal medicine and 23 family practice programs of the mid-Atlantic area. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 453 physicians in training and 88 medical students. INTERVENTIONS: All participants listened to 12 cardiac events directly recorded from patients, which they identified by completing a multiple-choice questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: scores were expressed as the percentage of participants, for year and type of training, who correctly identified each event. Cumulative scores were expressed as the total number of events correctly recognized. An adjusted score was calculated whenever participants selected not only the correct finding but also findings that are acoustically similar and yet absent. RESULTS: Trainees' cumulative scores ranged between 0 and 7 for both internal medicine and family practice residents (median, 2.5 and 2.0, respectively). Internal medicine residents had the highest cumulative adjusted scores for the 6 extra sounds and for all 12 cardiac events tested (P=.01 and .02, respectively). On average, internal medicine and family practice residents recognized 20% of all cardiac events; the number of correct identifications improved little with year of training and was not significantly higher than the number identified by medical students. CONCLUSIONS: Both internal medicine and family practice trainees had a disturbingly low identification rate for 12 important and commonly encountered cardiac events. This study suggests a need to improve the teaching and assessment of cardiac auscultation during generalists' training, particularly with the advent of managed care and its search for more cost-effective uses of technology.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Barry Issenberg, S., Mcgaghie, W. C., Petrusa, E. R., Lee Gordon, D., & Scalese, R. J. (2005) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590500046924 · Cited by 3,966
Ericsson, K. A. (2004) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200410001-00022 · Cited by 2,988
McGaghie, W. C., Siddall, V. J., Mazmanian, P. E., & Myers, J. (2009) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.08-2521 · Cited by 248
Cardiac Auscultation: Rediscovering the Lost Art
Chizner, M. A. (2008) · Current Problems in Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2008.03.003 · Cited by 144
Kuhn, G. J. (2002) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1197/aemj.9.7.740 · Cited by 126
Metadata
- Authors
- Mangione, S.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association
- Published
- 1997-09-03
- Volume
- 278
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 717-722
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4237805639
- Cited by
- 507
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cardiac auscultatory skills of internal medicine and family practice trainees. A comparison of diagnostic proficiency. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.278.9.717
- The paper
- Mangione, S. (1997). Cardiac auscultatory skills of internal medicine and family practice trainees. A comparison of diagnostic proficiency. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.278.9.717
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.