ArticleF1000Research2024
Critical Thinking and Clinical Reasoning in Undergraduate Medical Course: A Mixed-Methods Study in a Medical College in Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Article in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- First-year medical students' expectations and early experiences of learning critical thinking: a qualitative study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Educational and Licensing Challenges Faced by Indian International Medical Graduates: A Critical Synthesis.Medical science educator · 2025Review
- Unlocking effective decision-making and critical thinking in orthopaedics: Insights from a narrative review.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- Perceptions, attitudes, and barriers toward research among medical students in the United Arab Emirates: a national cross-sectional study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Article
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
Critical thinking is considered as the essential set of skills for medical practice, particularly during emergencies. However, there is lack of conceptual clarity around it and it was not explicitly included in the undergraduate medical curriculum in India. The present study has been planned to assess the critical thinking disposition and clinical reasoning skills among medical undergraduate students in a medical college in West Bengal, India. The perceived definition and attributes of critical thinking in medical education will be explored and the contexts where application of critical thinking skills may be crucial for medical practice will be identified. The content validity index, test-retest agreement; internal consistency and construct validity of the Critical Thinking Disposition Assessment Questionnaire (CTDAQ) will be assessed through step-by-step procedure. CTDAQ and the case-based objective-type questions for the clinical reasoning skills will be applied to around 200 medical undergraduate students. Their perception and experience on critical thinking in medical education will be assessed with structured open-ended questions. In-depth interviews with medical teachers of the second and third phases of undergraduate medical curriculum will be conducted to assess their perception and experiences on critical thinking. The quantitative analysis will be conducted with MS excel and R software using the relevant packages. The qualitative data will be transcribed and translated in English, close to the participants' verbatim. The thematic analysis will be conducted with inductive coding and memoing. The study will be conducted maintaining ethical standards for epidemiological studies. The present study, one of the first a few studies in India, will help to meet the conceptual gap in understanding the attributes of critical thinking, its association with clinical reasoning and the contexts of preferred application in medical practice.
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.