ArticleCureus2023
Comparing the Efficacy of Individual Approaches and Team-Based Approaches in Solving Clinical Case Vignettes.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mitigation of inflammation and oxidative stress in FCA-induced arthritic rat model through gum acacia intervention: a comprehensive in‑vivo study.Inflammopharmacology · 2025Article
- Examining the Potential of ChatGPT on Biomedical Information Retrieval: Fact-Checking Drug-Disease Associations.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Clinical case vignettes are a widely adopted pedagogical approach in medical education. The cases may be presented to students with a closed response option for objectivity. While solving clinical cases has demonstrated its effectiveness in enhancing medical students' clinical reasoning, there is an ongoing debate regarding the most effective approach: individual problem-solving or team-based problem-solving. Objective To observe and compare the score obtained from individual clinical problem-solving approaches versus team-based clinical problem-solving approaches. Methods After obtaining consent, a total of 100 students were randomly selected for the study. The participants were divided into two groups: an individual approach group (IAG) (n=25) and a team-based approach group (TAG) comprising 25 groups of three students each. Both groups were presented with a set of 10 clinical problems, each requiring a closed-answer response of "yes", "no", or "don't know". The participants' responses were recorded and analyzed to evaluate their problem-solving efficacy. Results A total of 25 responses were obtained from 25 students from the IAG group and 25 responses from 25 groups from the TAG group. There was no difference between the score in IAG (7.44±1.12) and TAG (7.52 1.66) p-value=0.58. There was no difference between individual scores in 10 questions between IAG and TAG groups. Conclusion The study found no significant score differences between individual and team-based clinical case-solving groups. Hence, for the objective type of case-solving pattern used in this study, a team-based approach may not be necessary. Further research is needed to explore factors for such findings in future studies.
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.