ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
Using Group History-Taking and Individual Reasoning to Identify Shortcomings in Clinical Reasoning for Medical Students.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. 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.
- Developing and Validating a Coding Scheme for Clinical Reasoning in History Taking Using Generative AI-Based Virtual Patients: Systematic Text Condensation Approach.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Based on digital intelligence: teaching innovation and practice of veterinary internal medicine in China's southwest frontier.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Review
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
objectiveIt is crucial that teaching faculties determine and remain informed of medical school learners' clinical reasoning competence. We created an innovative assessment method for fourth-year medical students to identify deficiencies in various components of their clinical reasoning ability.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional observational study of fourth-year medical students' reasoning assessments from 2019 to 2022. Teams of four-five trainees questioned standardized patients in clinical scenarios, including fever, abdominal pain, and weight loss. They then individually documented key information to reflect comprehension of patient problems. Trainees were tasked with differentiating diagnoses and associated statuses and reaching the most likely diagnosis along with two tentative diagnoses. The correlations observed between 2020 and 2022 for abdominal pain were analyzed using student
resultsA total of 177 students participated in this study. Across the scenarios, there was no significant difference in key information representation scores (56%-58%). Reasoning ability scores were 49% for fever, 57% for abdominal pain, and 61% for weight loss. A comparison between 2020 and 2022 revealed a significant improvement in the objective structured clinical examination scores and differential diagnoses (
conclusionsFourth-year medical students exhibited inadequate reasoning abilities, particularly in fever and abdominal pain scenarios, with deficiencies in hypothesis generation and differential diagnosis. Group history-taking with individual reasoning assessment identified students' shortcomings and provided faculty feedback to improve their teaching strategies.
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.