ArticleBMC medical education2024
An assessment of clinical reception training using standard patient and dental simulator in prosthodontic dentistry for dental undergraduates: a historical control trial.
Article 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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Concepts and clinical application of digital 3D microscopy].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- The landscape of virtual simulation in undergraduate dental education with implications for artificial intelligence incorporation.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Enhancing patient interview and clinical examination training: the impact of the Simroid dental training robot.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Empathy dimensions and patient-centered care during dental training: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Computer-based case simulations enhances clinical reasoning skills of non-dental medical students as measured by mini-CEX.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Soft skills in dental student curricula: an evidence and gap map.BMC medical education · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical reception training plays a crucial role in developing undergraduates' clinical thinking and competence. The study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical reception training conducted by standard patients (SPs) and dental simulators among undergraduate students. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn the first week of the internship, sixty-five 5
resultsThe total performance of interns in the SP group was superior to that of the control group, particularly in history taking, physical examination, and doctor-patient communication (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of clinical judgement, medical record, and overall capabilities. Both groups showed improved results after 8 weeks compared to those obtained after 2 weeks.
conclusionIntegrating SPs and dental simulators into clinical reception training can effectively enhance undergraduate students' ability in history taking, physical examination, and doctor-patient communication. This training method effectively aids in mastering the reception process and is recommended for wider implementation in dental undergraduate education.
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.