ArticleBMC medical education2020
Regression analyses of questionnaires in bedside teaching.
Article in BMC medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A cross-sectional study exploring academic motivation among rehabilitation science students under different teaching approaches in China.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The challenges and opportunities clinical education in the context of psychological, educational and therapeutic dimensions in teaching hospital.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Psychometric evaluation of Maastricht clinical teaching questionnaire based on the cognitive apprenticeship model.Journal of education and health promotion · 2023Article
- Validation of a questionnaire exploring patient attitudes towards bedside teaching.BMC medical education · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudents' ratings of bedside teaching courses are difficult to evaluate and to comprehend. Validated systematic analyses of influences on students' perception and valuation of bedside teaching can serve as the basis for targeted improvements.
methodsSix hundred seventy-two observations were conducted in different surgical departments. Survey items covered the categories teacher's performance, student's self-perception and organizational structures. Relevant factors for the student overall rating were identified by multivariable linear regression after exclusion of variable correlations > 0.500. The main target for intervention was identified by the 15% worst overall ratings via multivariable logistic regression.
resultsAccording to the students the success of bedside teaching depended on their active participation and the teacher's explanations of pathophysiology. Further items are both relevant to the overall rating and a possible negative perception of the session. In comparison, negative perception of courses (worst 15%) is influenced by fewer variables than overall rating. Variables that appear in both calculations show slight differences in their weighing for their respective endpoints.
conclusionRelevant factors for overall rating and negative perception in bedside teaching can be identified by regression analyses of survey data. Analyses provide the basis for targeted improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.