Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35550085›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2022

The effectiveness of using virtual patient educational tools to improve medical students' clinical reasoning skills: a systematic review.

Ruth Plackett, Angelos P Kassianos, Sophie Mylan, Maria Kambouri, Rosalind Raine, Jessica Sheringham

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatric Graduate Medical Education.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ruth PlackettDepartment of Applied Health Research, UCL, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 6BT, UK. ruth.plackett.15@ucl.ac.uk.
Angelos P KassianosDepartment of Applied Health Research, UCL, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
Sophie MylanDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England.
Maria KambouriInstitute of Education, UCL, London, UK.
Rosalind RaineDepartment of Applied Health Research, UCL, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
Jessica SheringhamDepartment of Applied Health Research, UCL, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.

Funding

NIHR Policy Research Unit in Cancer Awareness, Screening and Early Diagnosis 106/0001School for Public Health Research PD-SPH-2015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUse of virtual patient educational tools could fill the current gap in the teaching of clinical reasoning skills. However, there is a limited understanding of their effectiveness. The aim of this study was to synthesise the evidence to understand the effectiveness of virtual patient tools aimed at improving undergraduate medical students' clinical reasoning skills.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science and PsycINFO from 1990 to January 2022, to identify all experimental articles testing the effectiveness of virtual patient educational tools on medical students' clinical reasoning skills. Quality of the articles was assessed using an adapted form of the MERSQI and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A narrative synthesis summarised intervention features, how virtual patient tools were evaluated and reported effectiveness.

resultsThe search revealed 8,186 articles, with 19 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Average study quality was moderate (M = 6.5, SD = 2.7), with nearly half not reporting any measurement of validity or reliability for their clinical reasoning outcome measure (8/19, 42%). Eleven articles found a positive effect of virtual patient tools on reasoning (11/19, 58%). Four reported no significant effect and four reported mixed effects (4/19, 21%). Several domains of clinical reasoning were evaluated. Data gathering, ideas about diagnosis and patient management were more often found to improve after virtual patient use (34/47 analyses, 72%) than application of knowledge, flexibility in thinking and problem-solving (3/7 analyses, 43%).

conclusionsUsing virtual patient tools could effectively complement current teaching especially if opportunities for face-to-face teaching or other methods are limited, as there was some evidence that virtual patient educational tools can improve undergraduate medical students' clinical reasoning skills. Evaluations that measured more case specific clinical reasoning domains, such as data gathering, showed more consistent improvement than general measures like problem-solving. Case specific measures might be more sensitive to change given the context dependent nature of clinical reasoning. Consistent use of validated clinical reasoning measures is needed to enable a meta-analysis to estimate effectiveness.

Indexed as

Students, MedicalClinical CompetenceClinical ReasoningHumansProblem SolvingReproducibility of ResultsClinical decision-makingClinical reasoningClinical skillsComputer-assisted instructionComputer simulationEducational technologyMedical educationMedical studentsReviewVirtual patient

Identifiers

PMID35550085
PMCPMC9098350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.