Claims

Generative retrieval improves anatomy knowledge retention in anaesthesiology residents at one week and one month

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q4
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q4 i? In an RCT, the intervention group scored 90.0% versus 82.0% for the control group at one week (p = 0.012) and 83.0% versus 72.0% at one month (p = 0.026). → Albert Francis A. 2024

Evidence

Albert Francis A. 2024

Albert Francis A., Seidu Abdul-Aziz, Mason Hannah M., Anderson Emma, Alele Faith O., Heggarty Paula, Hollins Aaron, Gupta Tarun Sen, Hays Richard B., McArthur Lawrie, Malau-Aduli Bunmi S. (2024). A systematic review of medical practitioners' retention and application of basic sciences to clinical practice. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05952-8

q4 · i? · review · r3

Randomised controlled trial of a generative retrieval educational intervention in anaesthesiology residents and medical students (N = 30 per Table 1), knowledge tested one week and one month post-intervention; the quoted table row prints p = 0.012 with no effect size.

"1-week post-intervention: The control group score was 82.0% versus 90.0% for the intervention group (p = 0.012)"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.