This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

66/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® is a well-regarded and widely used continuing medical education tool published by the American Academy of Neurology. The objective of this study was to test the effectiveness of a modified version of the Dementia module of the Continuum curriculum, adapted for medical students rotating on their neurology clerkship, in increasing medical knowledge of dementia. Methods A multisite longitudinal randomized controlled design was used. Medical students rotating on their Neurology clerkship were recruited from 2 US medical schools. Participants completed 10 multiple-choice questions, 1 fill-in-the-blank, and 1 patient case simulation question to assess medical knowledge of the most prevalent dementias pre- and post-curriculum implementation. All students received their standard dementia curriculum (45-minute live didactic presentation on dementia along with a copy of the slides in handout form). Students were randomized to either the intervention (standard + Continuum curriculum) or control (standard curriculum alone) group. Data collection and outcomes assessment was optimized via an interactive audience response system (pretest) and Web-based survey/database tool (post-test and student satisfaction surveys). Results From pre- to post-clinical clerkship, medical students completing the Continuum dementia curriculum in addition to standard clerkship curriculum demonstrated significantly greater increases in medical knowledge of dementia, relative to students completing only the standard curriculum. Subscores were significantly higher among Continuum-trained students on questions regarding Alzheimer disease (AD), frontotemporal lobar dementia, Lewy body dementia, AD treatment fill-in-the-blank, and AD patient case simulation. Conclusions The Continuum: Dementia for Medical Students curriculum provided an inexpensive and readily implementable means for improving medical knowledge of dementia. Improved performance on an AD patient case simulation may be considered a surrogate marker for optimized patient care.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Isaacson, R. S., Safdieh, J. E., & Ochner, C. N. (2011). Effectiveness of a modified Continuum curriculum for medical students: a randomized trial. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0b013e318205d4fa

Vancouver

Isaacson RS, Safdieh JE, Ochner CN. Effectiveness of a modified Continuum curriculum for medical students: a randomized trial. Neurology. 2011. doi:10.1212/wnl.0b013e318205d4fa. PMID: 21220718.

BibTeX

@article{isaacson2011-21220718,
  author  = {Isaacson, R. S. and Safdieh, J. E. and Ochner, C. N.},
  title   = {{Effectiveness of a modified Continuum curriculum for medical students: a randomized trial}},
  journal = {Neurology},
  year    = {2011},
  doi     = {10.1212/wnl.0b013e318205d4fa},
  pmid    = {21220718},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0b013e318205d4fa}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Results From pre- to post-clinical clerkship, medical students completing the Continuum dementia curriculum in addition to standard clerkship curriculum demonstrated significantly greater increases in medical knowledge of dementia, relative to students completing only the standard curriculum.
Subscores were significantly higher among Continuum-trained students on questions regarding Alzheimer disease (AD), frontotemporal lobar dementia, Lewy body dementia, AD treatment fill-in-the-blank, and AD patient case simulation.

Why it matters

This randomized trial tested a modified dementia curriculum for medical students on their neurology clerkship. Students who received the added curriculum showed significantly greater increases in dementia knowledge, including on Alzheimer's disease questions, but this concerns medical education, not treating or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →

Study details

Study designlongitudinal study
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 66/100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, still being cited, senior author's track record and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 44 of the 67 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	11 / 12	A randomised controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”)
Strength of evidence	5 / 5	Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	2011 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
Randomised / blinded	1 / 2	Randomised (as stated in the record)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration	2 / 3	PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 21220718)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	44 / 67	Scored on 13 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 44 of the 67 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100.
Total	66 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — PubMed Central lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).

Related studies in Treatments

Also in Treatments

166 studies in the library are filed under Treatments with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Treatments hub.

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →