We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Review |

Trends in Study Methods Used in Undergraduate Medical Education Research, 1969-2007

Amy Baernstein, MD; Hillary K. Liss, MD; Patricia A. Carney, PhD; Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH
JAMA. 2007;298(9):1038-1045. doi:10.1001/jama.298.9.1038.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Context Evidence-based medical education requires rigorous studies appraising educational efficacy.

Objectives To assess trends over time in methods used to evaluate undergraduate medical education interventions and to identify whether participation of medical education departments or centers is associated with more rigorous methods.

Data Sources The PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, Campbell Collaboration, and ERIC databases (January 1966–March 2007) were searched using terms equivalent to students, medical and education, medical crossed with all relevant study designs.

Study Selection We selected publications in all languages from every fifth year, plus the most recent 12 months, that evaluated an educational intervention for undergraduate medical students. Four hundred seventy-two publications met criteria for review.

Data Extraction Data were abstracted on number of participants; types of comparison groups; whether outcomes assessed were objective, subjective, and/or validated; timing of outcome assessments; funding; and participation of medical education departments and centers. Ten percent of publications were independently abstracted by 2 authors to assess validity of the data abstraction.

Results The annual number of publications increased over time from 1 (1969-1970) to 147 (2006-2007). In the most recent year, there was a mean of 145 medical student participants; 9 (6%) recruited participants from multiple institutions; 80 (54%) used comparison groups; 37 (25%) used randomized control groups; 91 (62%) had objective outcomes; 23 (16%) had validated outcomes; 35 (24%) assessed an outcome more than 1 month later; 21 (14%) estimated statistical power; and 66 (45%) reported funding. In 2006-2007, medical education department or center participation, reported in 46 (31%) of the recent publications, was associated only with enrolling more medical student participants (P = .04); for all studies from 1969 to 2007, it was associated only with measuring an objective outcome (P = .048). Between 1969 and 2007, the percentage of publications reporting statistical power and funding increased; percentages did not change for other study features.

Conclusions The annual number of published studies of undergraduate medical education interventions demonstrating methodological rigor has been increasing. However, considerable opportunities for improvement remain.

Figures in this Article

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?



Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

35 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 3rd ed
Matching Content and Context: Evidence-Based Teaching Scripts

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 3rd ed
Verbal Synopses