ArticleCureus2024
Clinical Reasoning Skills Among Second-Phase Medical Students in West Bengal, India: An Exploratory Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Medical reasoning in LLMs: an in-depth analysis of DeepSeek R1.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Ethical principles across countries: does 'ethical' mean the same everywhere?Frontiers in public health · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Proper application of clinical reasoning skills is essential to reduce diagnostic and management errors. Explicit inclusion of training and assessment of clinical reasoning skills is the demand of time. The study intended to measure the clinical reasoning skills of second-phase undergraduate students in a medical college in West Bengal, India, and its distribution across several individual variables. Methods The clinical reasoning skills of 105 undergraduate medical students were assessed in a cross-sectional exploratory study using key feature questions (KFQs) with the partial credit scoring system. Six case vignettes aligned to the core competencies in the subject of pharmacology, pathology, and microbiology were designed and validated by the subject material experts for this purpose. The responses of the participants were collected through Google Forms (Google, Mountain View, CA) after obtaining written informed consent. The scores obtained in all KFQs were added and expressed in percentage of the maximum attainable score. Results The mean (±SD) clinical reasoning score of the participants was 42.5 (±12.6). Only 29.6% of respondents scored ≥ 50. Students with higher subjective economic status (p-value = 0.01) and perceived autonomy (p-value < 0.001) were more likely to have higher clinical reasoning scores. The marks obtained in previous summative examinations were significantly correlated with clinical reasoning scores. Conclusion Average score < 50.0 and inability to score ≥ 50.0 by more than two-thirds of the participants reflected the deficit in the clinical reasoning skills of second-phase MBBS students. The association of clinical reasoning skills with economic status, autonomy, and previous academic performances needs further exploration.
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.