Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37020221›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2023

Student standardized patients versus occupational standardized patients for improving clinical competency among TCM medical students: a 3-year prospective randomized study.

Jinhao Zeng, Shuang Liang, Xiaoxu Fu, Jing Guo, Yaolin Bai, Shan Zhou, Quanyu Du, Zhenxing Wang, Xiyu Zhang, Sihan Peng and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jinhao Zeng *Department of Chinese Internal Medicine, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Shuang Liang *Education Department, Clinical Medical School of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610075, China.
Xiaoxu Fu *Department of Chinese Internal Medicine, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Jing GuoEducation Department, Clinical Medical School of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610075, China.
Yaolin BaiEducation Department, Clinical Medical School of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610075, China.
Shan ZhouEducation Department, Clinical Medical School of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610075, China.
Quanyu DuDepartment of Chinese Internal Medicine, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Zhenxing WangDepartment of Chinese Internal Medicine, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Xiyu ZhangDepartment of Chinese Internal Medicine, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Sihan PengDepartment of Chinese Internal Medicine, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Lijuan WenClinical Skill Center, Clinical Medical School of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610075, China.
Wenyuan LiSichuan Evidence-Based Medicine Center of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Bin LiDepartment of Chinese Internal Medicine, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China. libin@cdutcm.edu.cn.
Han YangDepartment of Chinese Internal Medicine, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China. yanghan@cdutcm.edu.cn.
Yi ZhangDepartment of Chinese Internal Medicine, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China. zhangyi2288@163.com.
Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

The construction project of teaching reform and talent cultivation in higher education from the TCM Advisory Committee in Sichuan province JZWYB202101The education and teaching reform program from the Clinical Medical School of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine JYJX202203The education and teaching reform program from the Clinical Medical School of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine JYJX202211The education and teaching reform program from the Clinical Medical School of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine JYJX202215The program of education and teaching reform from Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine grant nos. JGYB2018005The program of education and teaching reform from Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine grant nos. JGYB2018070The research project from the National Center for TCM Education and Development TC2021004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStandardized patient (SP) simulations are well-recognized patterns for practicing clinical skills and interactions. Our previous study showed that a simulation program using occupational SP for Traditional Chinese Medicine (OSP-TCMs) was efficient, however, a high cost and time-intensive nature have limited its use. TCM postgraduates trained as student SPs (SSP-TCMs) present a potentially cost-effective alternative. The purpose of this study was to examine and determine whether SSP simulation offered more benefits over didactic training alone for improving clinical competency among TCM medical students, and conduct a multifaceted analysis comparing SSP-TCMs and OSP-TCMs.

methodsThis was a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Fourth-year TCM undergraduates were recruited as trainees from the Clinical Medical School, Chengdu University of TCM. Data were collected from September 2018 to December 2020. Trainees were randomly divided into the three following groups: traditional method training group, OSP-TCM training group, and SSP-TCM training group (1:1:1). At the end of a 10-week curriculum, trainees received a two-station examination comprising a systematic online knowledge test and an offline clinical performance examination. Post-training and post-exam questionnaires were administered to collect feedback from these trainees.

resultsStudents assigned to the SSP-TCM training and OSP-TCM training groups received favorable marks for the "systematic knowledge test" and "TCM clinical skills" (2018, P

conclusionSimulation training for SSP-TCMs and OSP-TCMs showed great benefits for enhancing clinical competency. SSP-TCM simulation was feasible, practical, and cost-effective, and may serve as an alternative method to OSP-TCM simulation.

Indexed as

Simulation TrainingStudents, MedicalClinical CompetenceCurriculumHumansProspective StudiesClinical competencySimulationStandardized patientsTCM education

Identifiers

PMID37020221
PMCPMC10074708
OpenAlexW4362612118

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.