Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of abstracts submitted to the 2010 Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) meeting that were exclusively qualitative, and to examine whether these abstracts were more or less likely than all others to be designated as platform, poster, or publish only. METHODS: The database of abstracts submitted to the 2010 PAS meeting was searched using qualitative terms. Authors reviewed abstracts to identify exclusively qualitative abstracts. The proportions and mean score +/- standard deviation for qualitative abstracts and those designated platform, poster, or publish only were calculated. Student's t test was used to analyze mean differences; pairwise comparisons and odds ratios (ORs) were used to examine differences in the disposition of qualitative versus all other abstracts. The main outcome was the proportion of abstracts designated as platform, poster, or publish only. RESULTS: Of 4057 abstracts, 1.6% used only qualitative methods. Scores for qualitative and all other abstracts were 4.26 +/- 0.60 and 3.88 +/- 0.92, respectively (P < .001). The disposition of qualitative abstracts among platform, poster, and publish only differed from all other abstracts (P = .04). Compared with all others, qualitative abstracts had lower odds of platform presentation (OR 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.91), demonstrated a nonsignificant trend toward publish only (OR 1.6; 95% CI 0.95-2.7), and were equally likely to be posters (OR 1.1; 95% CI 0.65-1.8). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with all other abstracts, qualitative abstracts were about 3 times less likely to be chosen for platform presentations; in addition, they demonstrated a trend toward greater odds of publish only. These findings may be the result of inferior quality or an inadequate review process.

BACKGROUND: To determine whether a 'lay' rater could assess clinical reasoning, interrater reliability was measured between physician and lay raters of patient notes written by medical students as part of an 8-station objective structured clinical examination. METHODS: Seventy-five notes were rated on core elements of clinical reasoning by physician and lay raters independently, using a scoring guide developed by physician consensus. Twenty-five notes were rerated by a 2nd physician rater as an expert control. Kappa statistics and simple percentage agreement were calculated in 3 areas: evidence for and against each diagnosis and diagnostic workup. RESULTS: Agreement between physician and lay raters for the top diagnosis was as follows: supporting evidence, 89% (kappa = .72); evidence against, 89% (kappa = .81); and diagnostic workup, 79% (kappa = .58). Physician rater agreement was 83% (kappa = .59), 92% (kappa = .87), and 96% (kappa = .87), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using a comprehensive scoring guide, interrater reliability for physician and lay raters was comparable with reliability between 2 expert physician raters

Tools to examine the effects of teaching interventions across a variety of studies are needed. The authors perform a meta-analysis of 24 randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of teaching on medical students' patient communication skills. Study quality is rated using a modified Jadad score, and standardized mean difference effect size (d) measures are calculated. Fifteen of 24 studies have sufficient data for analysis. Students' ability to establish rapport improves after teaching. The effects are large when the teaching intervention was small group discussion (n = 5) or giving structured feedback on a student-patient interview (n = 6). A similar effect of teaching is seen on student data gathering skills (n = 5). Teaching medical students patient communication skills using small group discussion or providing feedback on a student-patient interview results in improvement in student performance