ArticleBioinformation2024
Impact of reflection writing on the learning ability of Indian medical students.
Article in Bioinformation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Short note on reflective writing.Bioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reflective writing develops meta-cognition among students. Therefore, it is of interest to compare effectiveness of post lecture reflective writing to didactic lecture between individual and group reflective writing. Hence, we included 124 first-year students from AIIMS Bhopal, India and divided them in two groups of 62 students. Both groups took a pre-test using a reflection questionnaire. Students were taught reflective writing. Both groups attended physiology lectures on two different topics. First lecture on body fluids where Group A wrote reflections individually and Group B did so in sub-groups (B1 to B6). After another lecture on Pathophysiology of oedema, Group A wrote reflections in groups and Group B wrote individually (A1 to A6). Both groups took a test in the form of MCQ about reflective writing on lectures. After intervention both groups took a post-test using a reflection questionnaire. Mean and standard deviation of Pre-test is 3.86 ± 0.86 and Post-test is 7.58 ± 1.01, respectively. The Mean and standard deviation of reflection who wrote individually is 38.05 ± 4.41 and in group is 27.45 ± 3.93, respectively with p-value < 0.05. Evaluation of students who wrote reflection in groups after second lecture the mean and standard deviation of reflection who wrote individually is 38.22 ± 4.64 and in group is 27.03 ± 2.87 respectively with p-value < 0.05. The performance of students who wrote reflection in groups is not satisfactory as compared to students who wrote their reflection individually.
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.