Cited by 40Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsInnovations in Medical EducationEmpathy and Medical Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Teaching Diagnostic Skills: Clinical Vignettes or Chief Complaints?

Open access
Nendaz, Mathieu R., Raetzo, Marc A., Junod, Alain F., Vu, Nu V.·2000·Advances in Health Sciences Education

Abstract

Two formats of case presentation are traditionally used for teaching problem-solving skills: clinical vignette or chief complaint formats. While the first one is more commonly used, it does not completely reflect the actual problem-solving process during a real encounter, which may hamper the learners to integrate separately acquired data gathering skills into their reasoning process and affect their diagnostic performance in practice. The present study compared diagnostic accuracy when the reasoning stimulus was a case vignette containing all diagnostic information versus the patient's chief complaint only. Forty-two medical students, 53 residents and 60 general internists participated in the study. Diagnostic accuracy was significantly lower for the chief complaint format at the student, resident, and practitioner levels. Analysis of the data gathered in the chief-complaint format revealed that faulty diagnostic decisions resulted from a failure to gather critical data. The results suggest that data gathering techniques, semiology, and medical reasoning should be trained in association and that this effort should be pursued beyond medical school.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1009887330078

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 10 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Vu, N.V. & Steward, D.E. (1990). Variant accuracy in methods of assessing clinical performance. In W. Bender, R.J. Hiemstra, A.J.J.A. Scherpbier & R.P. Zwierstra (eds.), Teaching and Assessing Clinical Competence, pp. 190–194. Groningen: BoekWerk Publications.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 40

Metadata

Authors
Nendaz, M. R., Raetzo, M. A., Junod, A. F., & Vu, N. V.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • University Hospital of Geneva (CH)
Corresponding author
Nendaz, Mathieu R.
Venue
Advances in Health Sciences Education
Published
2000-03
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
3-10
ISSN
  • 1382-4996 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1677
OpenAlex
W1562479208
Cited by
40
References
10
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Advances in Health Sciences Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
University of Illinois at Chicago
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
Keywords
clinical vignettes, diagnostic accuracy, medical reasoning, clinical problem solving, semiology, medical education, medical students, residents (medical training), internists

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