ArticleMedical education online2024
Exploring effective video-review strategies of patient encounters for medical students: precepted review versus peer discussion.
Article in Medical education online, 2024. 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.
- Effect of a short virtual reality training on first-attempt hand-disinfection performance in an OSCE: a randomized controlled trial.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- MedVidDeID: Protecting privacy in clinical encounter video recordings.Journal of biomedical informatics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVideo-recordings review of patient encounters is reported to improve the clinical performance of medical students. However, evidence on specific remediation strategies or outcomes are lacking. We aimed to implement videorecording-based remediation of standardized patient encounters among medical students, combined with preceptor one-on-one feedback or peer group discussion, and evaluate the effectiveness of the two remediation methods using objective structured clinical examination (OSCE).
methodsFollowing standardized patient encounters, 107 final-year medical students were divided into two groups based on different remediation methods of video review: (1) precepted video review with preceptor feedback (
resultsAfter remediation, the total and subcomponent OSCE scores, such as history taking, physical examination, and patient - physician interaction (PPI), among all students increased significantly. Post-remediation OSCE scores showed no significant difference between two remediation methods (preceptor module, 79.6 ± 4.3 vs. peer module, 79.4 ± 3.8 in the total OSCE score). Students' self-efficacy levels increased after remediation in both modules (both p-value <0.001), with no difference between the two modules. However, students' satisfaction level was higher in the preceptor module than in the peer module (80.1 ± 17.7 vs. 59.2 ± 25.1, p-value <0.001). Among students with poor baseline OSCE performance, a prominent increase in PPI scores was observed in the preceptor-based module.
conclusionVideo-based remediation of patient encounters, either through preceptor review with one-on-one feedback or through private review with peer discussion, was equally effective in improving the OSCE scores and self-efficacy levels of medical students. Underperforming students can benefit from precepted video reviews for building PPI.
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.