↓ Skip to main content

Physical examination in undergraduate medical education in the field of general practice – a scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Physical examination in undergraduate medical education in the field of general practice – a scoping review
Published in
BMC Medical Education, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1074-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dirk Moßhammer, Joachim Graf, Stefanie Joos, Rebekka Hertkorn

Abstract

Physical examination (PE) is an essential clinical skill and a central part of a physician's daily activity. Teaching of PE has been integrated into medical school by many clinical disciplines with respective specific examination procedures. For instance, PE teaching in general practice may include a full-body examination approach. Studies show that PE-skills of medical students often need enhancement. The aim of this article was to scope the literature regarding the teaching and research of PE within general practice during undergraduate medical education. We evaluated a wide breadth of literature relating to the content, study design, country of research institution and year of publication. Literature search in Medline along the PRISMA-P protocol was performed by search syntax ("physical examination" AND "medical education" AND "undergraduate" AND general practice) considering Medline MeSH (Medical Subject Heading)-Terms and Medline search term tree structure. Independent title, abstract and full-text screening with defined inclusion and exclusion criteria was performed. Full texts were analyzed by publication year, country of origin, study design and content (by categorizing articles along their main topic according to qualitative content analysis of Mayring). One-hundred seven articles were included. The annual number of publications ranged from 4 to 14 and had a slightly rising trend since 2000. Nearly half of the publications originated from the United States (n = 54), 33 from Canada and the United Kingdom. Overall, intervention studies represented the largest group (n = 60, including uncontrolled and controlled studies, randomized and non-randomized), followed by cross-sectional studies (n = 29). The 117 studies could be assigned to five categories "teaching methods (n = 53)", "teaching quality (n = 33)", "performance evaluation and examination formats (n=19)", "students' views (n = 8)" and "patients' and standardized patients' views (n=4)". The present work shows a wide spectrum of teaching and research activities and a certain level of evidence for the effectiveness of individual teaching methods. It can be used as orientation and impulse generator for the further development of medical education in the field of PE.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Student > Master 13 12%
Other 9 9%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 25 24%
Unknown 27 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 11%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Unspecified 4 4%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 34 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,541,536
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#746
of 3,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,157
of 438,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#22
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,365 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 438,185 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.