Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39413083›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Teaching and learning clinical reasoning skill in undergraduate medical students: A scoping review.

Somayeh Delavari, Farzaneh Barzkar, Remy M J P Rikers, Mohammadreza Pourahmadi, Seyed Kamran Soltani Arabshahi, Abbasali Keshtkar, Helen Dargahi, Minoo Yaghmaei, Alireza Monajemi

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The Development and Evaluation of a Clinical Reasoning Case for Second-Year Medical Students.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Somayeh DelavariCenter for Educational Research in Medical Education, Medical Education Department, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0001-7451-3077
Farzaneh BarzkarCenter for Educational Research in Medical Education, Medical Education Department, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Remy M J P RikersRoosevelt Center for Excellence in Education, University College Roosevelt, Utrecht University, Middelburg, The Netherlands.
Mohammadreza PourahmadiRehabilitation Research Center, Department of Physiotherapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Seyed Kamran Soltani ArabshahiCenter for Educational Research in Medical Education, Medical Education Department, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-9016-2593
Abbasali KeshtkarDepartment of Health Sciences Education Development, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-7305-8639
Helen DargahiCenter for Educational Research in Medical Education, Medical Education Department, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Minoo YaghmaeiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Alireza MonajemiDepartment of Philosophy of Science, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical reasoning involves the application of knowledge and skills to collect and integrate information, typically to arrive at a diagnosis, implement appropriate interventions, solve clinical problems, and improve the quality of health care and patient outcomes. It is a vital competency that medical students must acquire, as it is considered the heart of medicine. PURPOSE: This scoping review aimed to identify and summarize the existing literature on learning and teaching strategies for improving clinical reasoning skill in undergraduate medical education.

methodsWe conducted electronic searches in Scopus, PubMed/Medline (NLM), Web of Science (WOS), and ERIC to retrieve articles published between January 1, 2010, and March 23, 2024. We also performed hand searches by scanning the reference lists of included studies and similar reviews and searching three key journals. After removing duplicates, two reviewers independently extracted data from primary articles using a standard data extraction form. The authors used Arksey and O'Malley's framework.

resultsAmong the 46581 retrieved records, 54 full-text articles were included in the present review. We categorized the educational strategies based on their aspects, focus, and purpose. Included studies used various educational strategies for improving clinical reasoning skill in undergraduate medical education by serial cue or whole clinical cases that presented as process-oriented or knowledge-oriented.

conclusionThis scoping review investigated various dimensions of educational intervention for improving clinical reasoning skill in undergraduate medical education. There is a need for more precision studies with larger sample sizes, designing studies according to randomized controlled trials standards, determining MCID, or performing meta-analyses to acquire robust and conclusive results.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceClinical ReasoningEducation, Medical, UndergraduateStudents, MedicalHumansLearningTeaching

Identifiers

PMID39413083
PMCPMC11482728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.