Trial reportBMC medical education2024
Enhancing medical education with chatbots: a randomized controlled trial on standardized patients for colorectal cancer.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The impact of generative artificial intelligence on clinical skills and knowledge acquisition in medical undergraduates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- The Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence in Undergraduate Health Professions Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.JMIR medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Application of AI-Generated Content in Medical Education: Systematic Review of the Impact on Critical Thinking Abilities of Medical Students.JMIR medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effectiveness of generative artificial intelligence-based teaching versus traditional teaching methods in medical education: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence-powered virtual standardized patients in teaching history-taking skills to medical students: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- What Platform Scores Miss: Multidimensional Evaluation of AI Teaching Agents in Medical Education.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Effects of Artificial Intelligence-Supported Education on Critical Thinking, Problem-Solving, Clinical Reasoning, and Decision-Making in Health Science Education: A Systematic Review of Interventional Studies.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Review
- Scoping Review of Chatbot-Based Approaches to Cancer Patient Education.Nursing research and practice · 2026Review
- The impact of artificial intelligence-assisted teaching on medical students' learning outcomes: an integrated model based on the ARCS model and constructivist theory.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Assessing ChatGPT's Capability as a New Age Standardized Patient: Qualitative Study.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Evaluating the impact of interactive video-based case-based learning in clinical medical education: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCombination of Standardized Patient (SP) and Case Based Learning (CBL) is a common method in medical education, but traditional SP (TSP) may not be conducive to students' mastery of basic medical knowledge and the cultivation of clinical thinking. Therefore, it is necessary to innovate SP to optimize SP combined with CBL teaching method.
objectiveThis study aims to explore the effectiveness of a chatbot utilizing standardized patients based on CBL (CSP-CBL) for colorectal cancer education.
methods61 medical students who have studied the theoretical knowledge of colorectal cancer were selected as the study objects and randomly divided into experimental group and control group. The experimental group used CSP-CBL, and the control group used traditional SP based on CBL (TSP-CBL). Before the intervention, basic knowledge test and clinical thinking ability assessment scale were used to investigate basic ability. After the intervention, we compared the effectiveness of two teaching methods in training colorectal cancer diagnosis and treatment skills through basic knowledge test, clinical thinking ability assessment scale, course experience questionnaire and client satisfaction questionnaire.
resultThe majority of participants were female (62.3%, 38/61), 67.2% (41/61) were in the top 60% of school grades, and only 13.1% (8/61) had a medical background. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of demographic and sociological characteristics. There was no difference in pre-test of basic knowledge scores between the two groups (P = 0.489), but the CSP-CBL group scored significantly higher at post-intervention compared to the TSP-CBL group (SMD = -0.629, P < 0.05, 95% CI = (-0.789,-0.468)) and the CSP-CBL group also scored significantly higher than their baseline scores (SMD = - 0.991, p < 0.05, 95% CI = (-1.241,-0.740)). In terms of clinical thinking skills, the CSP-CBL group significantly improved their total score from (79.6 ± 15.9) to (86.2 ± 17.3) after the intervention (SMD = - 0.398, p < 0.05, 95% CI = (-0.498,-0.297)), but there was no significant difference between the two groups.The CSP-CBL group had a significantly lower academic load and course stress than the TSP-CBL group (SMD = -0.941, p < 0.01, 95% CI = (-1.181,-0.701); SMD = -0.6, p < 0.05, 95% CI = (-0.753,-0.447)) and scored significantly higher on the evaluation of future knowledge value (SMD = 0.603, p < 0.05, 95% CI = (0.449,0.757)). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of overall satisfaction, but the CSP-CBL group was significantly more satisfied than the TSP-CBL group in terms of meeting learning needs (SMD = 0.532, P < 0.05, 95% CI=(0.396,0.668)). There was no significant difference between the two groups in willingness to reuse the learning model.
conclusionThe results show that CSP-CBL teaching can significantly improve the basic knowledge and clinical thinking of clinical medical students learning colorectal cancer, better meet the learning needs of students and reduce the learning burden appropriately.
trial registrationChiCTR2300072017 (registered on 31/05/2023).
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.