Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39707245›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2024

Enhancing medical education with chatbots: a randomized controlled trial on standardized patients for colorectal cancer.

Yang Jiang, Xinghua Fu, Jing Wang, Qinling Liu, Xinyu Wang, Peijie Liu, Runchen Fu, Jiangpiao Shi, Yibo Wu

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Yang Jiang *Jitang College, North China University of Science and Technology, Tangshan, Hebei, China.
Xinghua Fu *The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, Heilongjiang, China.
Jing WangSchool of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Qinling LiuCollege of Nursing, North Sichuan Medical college, Nanchong, Sichuan, China.
Xinyu WangThe Fourth Central Hospital of Baoding, Baoding, Hebei, China.
Peijie LiuXi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Runchen FuSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences& lnstitute of Materia Medica, Shandong First Medical University, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Jiangpiao ShiThe Fourth Central Hospital of Baoding, Baoding, Hebei, China. 1051114056@qq.com.
Yibo WuSchool of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.

Funding

Baoding city Science and Technology Program project 2340ZZ003
6 · The paper itself

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

Colorectal NeoplasmsAdultClinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFemaleHumansMalePatient SimulationProblem-Based LearningStudents, MedicalYoung AdultCase-based learningChatbotColorectal cancerRandomized controlled trialStandardized patientsTeaching reform

Identifiers

PMID39707245
PMCPMC11662846

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.