ArticleCureus2024
Comparison of Peyton's Four-Step Approach With the Conventional Bedside Technique in Teaching Clinical Examination Skills to Medical Students.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A quasi-experimental comparison of Kolb and Peyton educational approaches on CPR knowledge and performance among nurses.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- The effect of a modified Peyton's four-step teaching method on orthokeratology skills: an experimental study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Enhancing Maternal ACLS Training: Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Modified Peyton's Four-Step Teaching Approach.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- Optimizing resident training in obstetrics and gynecology: a new perspective on the refined Peyton four-step teaching method.BMC medical education · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional bedside teaching (CBT) is an integral and classical method for imparting clinical skills to undergraduates in medical schools. It is a traditionally successful approach, especially when it comes to imparting patient-doctor relationship skills and knowledge on clinical management. Peyton's four-step approach (PFSA) is one of the newer structured instructional approaches for teaching-learning, especially for imparting procedural and complex psychomotor skills. The present study compares the application of PFSA in teaching complex systemic examination skills to the CBT technique in teaching the same skill to MBBS students. The impact of the acquisition of this examination skill was assessed statistically to compare PFSA and CBT methodologies. METHODOLOGY: The target population was MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery) students; for this study, the phase II MBBS students were considered as the study population since they were relatively naïve to clinical bedside examination skills. Students were allotted groups and they were taught clinical skills through CBT and PFSA separately. Using the OpenEpi toolkit Version 3 open-source sample size calculator for comparing two means, the sample size was 30 students in each group. The students were assessed for their competency and were also made to fill out a feedback questionnaire to compare the two methods of education dispensing. Results: The results of this study showed that PFSA is definitely suitable for teaching clinical examination skills. The acquisition of skills was found non-inferior to CBT while the retention of these skills was found to be equally good or even superior with PFSA than with CBT. Conclusion: PFSA has already been proven to be a good teaching method for the acquisition of complex procedural skills. This study expands the role of PFSA in teaching clinical bedside examination skills to medical students. Further large-scale studies may clarify the learning impact and outcomes of PFSA in clinical bedside teaching.
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.