Display options
Cite
Waqar M, Wilcock J, Garner J, et al. Quantitative analysis of medical students' and physicians' knowledge of degenerative cervical myelopathy. BMJ Open. 2020;10(1):e028455doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028455.
Waqar, M., Wilcock, J., Garner, J., Davies, B., & Kotter, M. (2020). Quantitative analysis of medical students' and physicians' knowledge of degenerative cervical myelopathy. BMJ open, 10(1), e028455. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028455
Waqar, Mueez, et al. "Quantitative analysis of medical students' and physicians' knowledge of degenerative cervical myelopathy." BMJ open vol. 10,1 (2020): e028455. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028455
Waqar M, Wilcock J, Garner J, Davies B, Kotter M. Quantitative analysis of medical students' and physicians' knowledge of degenerative cervical myelopathy. BMJ Open. 2020 Jan 12;10(1):e028455. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028455. PMID: 31932384; PMCID: PMC7044983.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

BMJ Open. 2020 Jan 12;10(1):e028455. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028455.

Quantitative analysis of medical students' and physicians' knowledge of degenerative cervical myelopathy.

BMJ open

Mueez Waqar, Jane Wilcock, Jayne Garner, Benjamin Davies, Mark Kotter

Affiliations

  1. Academic Neurosurgery, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
  2. Department of Undergraduate Medical Education, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
  3. Department of Clinical Neurosurgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
  4. Department of Clinical Neurosurgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK [email protected].
  5. Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Ann McLaren Laboratory of Regenerative Medicine, Cambridge, UK.

PMID: 31932384 PMCID: PMC7044983 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028455

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We have previously identified a delay in general practitioner (GP) referrals for patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether an education gap existed for DCM along the GP training pathway by quantitatively assessing training in, and knowledge of, this condition.

DESIGN: Gap analysis: comparison of DCM to other conditions. Comparators selected on the basis of similar presentation/epidemiology (multiple sclerosis), an important spinal emergency (cauda equina syndrome) and a common disease (diabetes mellitus).

SUBJECTS: Medical students, foundation doctors and GP trainees. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Assessment of training: quantitative comparison of references to DCM in curricula (undergraduate/postgraduate) and commonly used textbooks (Oxford Handbook Series), to other conditions using modal ranks. (2) Assessment of knowledge: using standardised questions placed in an online question-bank (Passmedicine). Results were presented relative to the question-bank mean (+/-).

RESULTS: DCM had the lowest modal rank of references to the condition in curricula analysis and second lowest modal rank in textbook analysis. In knowledge analysis questions were attempted 127 457 times. Performance for DCM questions in themes of presentation (+6.1%), workup (+0.1%) and management (+1.8%) were all greater than the question-bank mean and within one SD. For students and junior trainees, there was a serial decrease in performance from presentation and workup (-0.7% to +10.4% relative to question-bank mean) and management (-0.6% to -3.9% relative to question-bank mean).

CONCLUSIONS: Although infrequently cited in curricula and learning resources, knowledge relating to DCM was above average. However, knowledge relating to its management was relatively poor.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Keywords: cervical myelopathy; degenerative spine; gap analysis; physician knowledge; spondylosis

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: Research in the senior author’s laboratory is supported by a core support grant from the Wellcome Trust and MRC to the Wellcome Trust-Medical Research Council Cambridge Stem Cell

References

  1. J Emerg Med. 2010 Jan;38(1):65-9 - PubMed
  2. HSS J. 2015 Feb;11(1):36-42 - PubMed
  3. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017 Feb;98(2):353-367 - PubMed
  4. Neurosurg Focus. 2013 Jul;35(1):E1 - PubMed
  5. BMJ. 2018 Feb 22;360:k186 - PubMed
  6. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2014 Jul;122:124-8 - PubMed
  7. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2013 Mar-Apr;34(2):101-5 - PubMed
  8. J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Aug;33(8):1292-1298 - PubMed
  9. Eur J Neurol. 2007 Oct;14(10):1109-12 - PubMed
  10. World Neurosurg. 2014 Mar-Apr;81(3-4):640-50 - PubMed
  11. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2018 Jul;10(7):933-939 - PubMed
  12. Am J Surg. 2014 Dec;208(6):1029-34; discussion 1034 - PubMed
  13. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2014 Nov 23;11:29 - PubMed
  14. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Sep 1;40(17):1322-8 - PubMed
  15. J Clin Neurosci. 2014 Jun;21(6):919-22 - PubMed
  16. Med Teach. 1986;8(2):155-8 - PubMed
  17. Neurology. 2007 Feb 20;68(8):597-9 - PubMed
  18. Neurology. 2016 Mar 15;86(11):1014-21 - PubMed
  19. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Jun 15;40(12):E675-93 - PubMed
  20. World Neurosurg. 2017 Oct;106:699-706 - PubMed
  21. Global Spine J. 2017 Sep;7(3 Suppl):70S-83S - PubMed
  22. Postgrad Med J. 2016 Jun;92(1088):318-21 - PubMed
  23. BMJ Open. 2019 May 5;9(5):e027000 - PubMed
  24. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Jan 11;21(1):e10868 - PubMed
  25. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18;(4):CD006060 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types

Grant support