Free Access
Issue
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 22, Number 4, 2021
Page(s) 199 - 204
Section Tribune
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2021024
Published online 1 décembre 2021
  1. Norman G. May: A month of myths. Adv Health Sci Educ Theor Pract 2018;23:449‐53. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. De Bruyckere P, Kirshner P, Hulshof D. Urban myths about learning and education. San Diego (CA): Academic Press, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  3. Norman G. The once and future myths of medical education. J Grad Med Educ 2020;12:125‐30. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Collectif. Medical education mythology. Research, teaching, strategies, assessment, societal matters, practice. Med Educ 2020;54:2‐87. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Frank J. These ideas must die: The zombies of MedEd. In: AMEE Conference, Vienna, 24–28 août 2019, #11 Plenary 4. 2019 [On-line]: https://amee.org/getattachment/Conferences/AMEE-Past-Conferences/AMEE-2019/AMEE-2019-Abstract-Book-Post-Conference-v2.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  6. Nendaz M, Perrier A. Diagnostic errors and flaws in clinical reasoning: Mechanisms and prevention in practice. Swiss Med Wkly 2012 [On-line]. Disponible sur : https://smw.ch/article/doi/smw.2012.13706. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Mamede S, Goeijenbier M, Schuit SCE, de Carvalho Filho MA, Staal J, Zwaan L et al. Specific disease knowledge as predictor of susceptibility to availability bias in diagnostic reasoning: A randomized controlled experiment. J Gen Intern Med 2021;36:640‐6. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mamede S, de Carvalho-Filho MA, de Faria RMD, Franci D, Nunes MDPT, Ribeiro LMC et al. “Immunising” physicians against availability bias in diagnostic reasoning: A randomised controlled experiment. BMJ Qual Saf 2020;29:550‐9. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Mamede S, van Gog T, van den Berge K, Rikers RMJ, van Saase JLC, van Guldener C et al. Effect of availability bias and reflective reasoning on diagnostic accuracy among internal medicine residents. JAMA 2010;304:1198‐203. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Mamede S, Schmidt HG, Rikers R. Diagnostic errors and reflective practice in medicine. J Eval Clin Pract 2007;13:138‐45. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kämmer JE, Hautz WE, Herzog SM, Kunina-Habenicht O, Kurvers RHJM. The potential of collective intelligence in emergency medicine: Pooling medical students’ independent decisions improves diagnostic performance. Med Decis Making 2017;37:715‐24. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. McDonald KM, Matesic B, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Lonhart J, Schmidt E, Pineda N et al. Patient safety strategies targeted at diagnostic errors: A systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2013;158(5_Part_2):381‐89. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Zwaan L, Monteiro S, Sherbino J, Ilgen J, Howey B, Norman G. Is bias in the eye of the beholder? A vignette study to assess recognition of cognitive biases in clinical case workups. BMJ Qual Saf 2017;26:104‐10. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Croskerry P, Singhal G, Mamede S. Cognitive debiasing 1: Origins of bias and theory of debiasing. BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22(Suppl 2):ii58‐ii64. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. Reprint édition. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  16. Norman G, Sherbino J, Dore K, Wood T, Young M, Gaissmaier W et al. The etiology of diagnostic errors: A controlled trial of system 1 versus system 2 reasoning. Acad Med 2014;89:277‐84. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Sherbino J, Dore KL, Wood TJ, Young M, Gaissmaier W, Kreuger S et al. The relationship between response time and diagnostic accuracy. Acad Med 2012;87:785‐91. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ilgen JS, Bowen JL, McIntyre LA, Banh KV, Barnes D, Coates WC et al. Comparing diagnostic performance and the utility of clinical vignette-based assessment under testing conditions designed to encourage either automatic or analytic thought. Acad Med 2013;88:1545‐51. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Monteiro S, Sherbino J, Sibbald M, Norman G. Critical thinking, biases and dual processing: The enduring myth of generalisable skills. Med Educ 2020;54:66‐73. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Patterson F, Roberts C, Hanson MD, Hampe W, Eva K, Ponnamperuma G et al. 2018 Ottawa consensus statement: Selection and recruitment to the healthcare professions. Med Teach 2018;40:1091‐101. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Powis D, Munro D, Bore M, Eley D. Why is it so hard to consider personal qualities when selecting medical students? Med Teach 2020;42:366‐71. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Mazer BL. Accepting randomness in medical school admissions: The case for a lottery. Med Teach 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1832206. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Wouters A, Croiset G, Kusurkar RA. Selection and lottery in medical school admissions: Who gains and who loses? MedEdPublish 2018;7(4). https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2018.0000271.1. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Rees E, Woolf K. Selection in context: The importance of clarity, transparency and evidence in achieving widening participation goals. Med Educ 2020;54:8‐10. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Schwartzstein RM. Getting the right medical students – Nature versus nurture. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1586‐7. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Nendaz M. Medical student selection: The quest for the Grail. Swiss Med Wkly 2021;151:w20467. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Abbiati M, Baroffio A, Gerbase MW. Personal profile of medical students selected through a knowledge-based exam only: Are we missing suitable students? Med Educ Online 2016;21:29705. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Dzau VJ, Johnson PA. Ending sexual harassment in academic medicine. N Engl J Med 2018;379:1589‐1591. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Fnais N, Soobiah C, Chen MH, Lillie E, Perrier L, Tashkhandi M et al. Harassment and discrimination in medical training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med 2014;89:817‐827. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Irby DM. Excellence in clinical teaching: knowledge transformation and development required. Med Educ 2014;48:776‐84. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Audétat M-C, Laurin S, Dory V, Charlin B, Nendaz M. Diagnostic et prise en charge des difficultés de raisonnement clinique. Guide AMEE no117 (version courte) – Seconde partie : gestion des difficultés et stratégies de remédiation. Pédagogie Médicale 2017;18:139‐49. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  32. Fernandez N, Audétat M-C. Faculty development program evaluation: A need to embrace complexity. Adv Med Educ Pract 2019;10:191‐9. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Pelaccia T, Demeester A, Charlin B, Denef J-F, Gagnayre R, Maisonneuve H et al. Le déploiement de la formation à distance au sein des facultés de médecine dans le contexte de la crise sanitaire liée à la Covid-19 : et après ? Pédagogie Médicale 2020;21:173‐4. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  34. He L, Yang N, Xu L, Ping F, Li W, Sun Q et al. Synchronous distance education vs. traditional education for health science students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Educ 2021;55:293‐308. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Vaona A, Banzi R, Kwag KH, Rigon G, Cereda D, Pecoraro V et al. E-learning for health professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;1:CD011736. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Jauregui J, Watsjold B, Welsh L, Ilgen JS, Robins L. Generational “othering”: The myth of the millennial learner. Med Educ 2020;54:60‐65. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Martimianakis MAT, Tilburt J, Michalec B, Hafferty FW. Myths and social structure: The unbearable necessity of mythology in medical education. Med Educ 2020;54:15‐21. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Sharifabadi AD, Clarkin C, Doja A. Myths in medicine: How did we get here? Med Educ 2020;54:13‐14. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. de Bruin ABH. Debunking myths in medical education: The science of refutation. Med Educ 2020;54:6‐8. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Brown J, Nestel D. Theories and myths in medical education: What is valued and who is served? Med Educ 2020;54:4‐6. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Kulasegaram KM, Eva KW. Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths. Med Educ 2020;54:2‐3. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.