ArticleBMC medical education2020
The evaluation of stomatology English education in China based on 'Guanghua cup' international clinical skill exhibition activity.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Pharmacotrophy": a playful tournament for game- and team-based learning in pharmacology education - assessing its impact on students' performance.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Complex motivations of Japanese medical students to an online medical English course during the COVID-19 pandemic.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2022Article
- The national dental undergraduate clinical skills competition known as the Guanghua Cup: an innovative and effective program that promoted undergraduate dental education in China.BMC medical education · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEnglish education in professional areas has become more and more important with the increasing internationalization of health profession education in countries around the world. In this study, we aimed to evaluate current Chinese stomatology English education based on Chinese participants' ability to apply stomatology English during an international stomatology skill competition called the 'Guanghua Cup activity'.
methodsThe registration rate of English and Chinese volunteers and the answer rate and accuracy of Chinese and international contestants on the English knowledge quiz were statistically described. A five-point Likert scale questionnaire was delivered to all participants. The data were analyzed using the Spearman test, Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test and Mann-Whitney U test.
resultsAmong the 194 students, the English and Chinese volunteer registration rate was 7.73 and 30.93%, respectively. The answer rate of Chinese contestants and international contestants in the English quiz was 25 and 75%, with an accuracy rate of 50 and 66.70%, respectively. The questionnaire was graded by Likert five-level classification. There was a positive correlation between the use of English textbooks in classes and the communication with international teachers and students in the competition (Rs = 0.348, p = 0.016). English volunteers had more preparation in English before the competition, more opportunities to communicate with international peers, and greater improvement in English ability than the contestants and Chinese volunteers (p < 0.001). After the competition, all participants paid more attention to stomatology English (p < 0.001).
conclusionsChinese stomatology students have difficulty in stomatology English application. The 'Guanghua Cup' helps to improve English proficiency of English volunteers and arouses the interest of stomatology English for all participants. Chinese stomatology school needs to strengthen and reach a consensus in stomatology English education.
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.