↓ Skip to main content

Assessing musculoskeletal examination skills and diagnostic reasoning of 4th year medical students using a novel objective structured clinical exam

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Assessing musculoskeletal examination skills and diagnostic reasoning of 4th year medical students using a novel objective structured clinical exam
Published in
BMC Medical Education, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0780-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Brent Stansfield, Lisa Diponio, Cliff Craig, John Zeller, Edmund Chadd, Joshua Miller, Seetha Monrad

Abstract

Medical students have difficulty performing and interpreting musculoskeletal physical examinations and interpreting the findings. Research has focused on students' knowledge deficits, but there are few direct assessments of students' ability to perform a hypothesis-driven physical examination (HDPE). We developed a novel musculoskeletal Objective Structured Clinical Exam (OSCE) focusing on HDPE skills for disorders of the shoulder, back and knee, and used it to explore medical student diagnostic reasoning. A multidisciplinary group of musculoskeletal specialists developed and gathered validity evidence for a three station OSCE focusing on the HDPE of the shoulder, back and knee, emphasizing the ability to anticipate (identify pre-encounter) expected physical exam findings, and subsequently perform discriminatory physical examination maneuvers. The OSCE was administered to 45 final year medical students. Trained faculty observed and scored students' ability to anticipate exam findings and perform diagnostic examination maneuvers on simulated patients. Encounters were digitally recorded and scored again by another trained faculty member. Inter-rater reliability for each maneuver was estimated using type-2 intra-class correlations (ICC). Percentages of perfect scores for anticipation and performance were calculated. Pearson's correlation between anticipation and performance scores was computed for each maneuver and their relationship to diagnostic accuracy was tested with logistic regression. Inter-rater reliability was good (ICC between .69 and .87) for six exam maneuvers. Maneuver performance was overall poor, with no discriminatory maneuver performed correctly by more than two thirds of students, and one maneuver only performed correctly by 4 % of students. For the shoulder and knee stations, students were able to anticipate necessary discriminatory exam findings better than they could actually perform relevant exam maneuvers. The ability to anticipate a discriminatory finding correlated with the ability to perform the associated maneuver correctly, with the exception of the ability to perform maneuvers needed to diagnose a torn anterior cruciate ligament of the knee. Neither the ability to anticipate or perform was predictive of identifying correct diagnoses for the different cases. A novel musculoskeletal OSCE, based on principles of the hypothesis-driven physical examination, was able to identify significant deficiencies in examination skills needed to diagnose common disorders of the shoulder, back and knee amongst graduating medical students. In addition, the OSCE demonstrated that accurate anticipation of discriminatory examination findings correlates with ability to perform the associated maneuver; however, the ability to anticipate exceeds the ability to perform. Students do not appear to be using the physical exam to inform their diagnostic reasoning. The findings of this study have implications for both assessment and teaching of the musculoskeletal exam.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Other 8 9%
Lecturer 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Other 27 31%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 23 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 September 2023.
All research outputs
#17,299,378
of 25,391,701 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,642
of 3,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,439
of 326,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#44
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,391,701 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 326,277 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.