Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39806361›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2025

Effect of integrated case-based and problem-based learning on clinical thinking skills of assistant general practitioner trainees: a randomized controlled trial.

Dingyuan Jiang, Danpei Huang, Hua Wan, Wuliang Fu, Weidong Shi, Jin Li, Huan Zou, Niannan Hou, Qing Li, Nani Li

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

10 authors.

Dingyuan JiangDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Zhuzhou 331 Hospital, Zhuzhou, China.
Danpei HuangDepartment of General Practice, Zhuzhou 331 Hospital, Zhuzhou, China.
Hua WanDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Zhuzhou 331 Hospital, Zhuzhou, China.
Wuliang FuDepartment of Emergency, Zhuzhou 331 Hospital, Zhuzhou, China.
Weidong ShiDepartment of Cardiology, Zhuzhou 331 Hospital, Zhuzhou, China.
Jin LiDepartment of Neurology, Zhuzhou 331 Hospital, Zhuzhou, China.
Huan ZouDepartment of General Surgery, Zhuzhou 331 Hospital, Zhuzhou, China.
Niannan HouDepartment of Pulmonology, Zhuzhou 331 Hospital, Zhuzhou, China.
Qing LiDepartment of Emergency, Zhuzhou 331 Hospital, Zhuzhou, China.
Nani LiDepartment of Science and Education, Zhuzhou 331 Hospital, Zhuzhou, China. lnn4098@163.com.

Funding

The Hunan Provincial Inclusive Policy and Innovation Environment Building Program Clinical Medical Technology Innovation Guidance Project 2021SK53902The Provincial and Municipal Joint Fund of the Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation 2021JJ50066
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCase-Based Learning (CBL) and Problem-Based Learning (PBL) are popular methods in medical education. However, we do not fully understand how they affect the clinical thinking skills of Assistant General Practitioner (AGP) trainees. This randomised controlled trial aimed to assess the effectiveness of combining CBL and PBL and compare their impact on the clinical thinking skills of AGP trainees with that of traditional lecture-based learning (LBL).

methodsThis randomised controlled trial involved 70 second-year AGP trainees who were randomly assigned to either the CBL-PBL group or the LBL group using a simple randomisation method. The CBL-PBL group engaged in a curriculum that integrated case-based and problem-based learning, whereas the LBL group followed a traditional lecture-based format, as described in the syllabus. To evaluate clinical thinking skills, the participants were assessed using the Clinical Thinking Skills Evaluation Scale (CTSES) and an assistant general practitioner's professional knowledge test. In addition, this study analysed various factors that influence clinical thinking skills.

resultsCompared with the LBL group, the CBL-PBL group showed significantly improved performance in all domains assessed by the CTSES in post-course tests (p < 0.001). Specifically, the mean scores for critical, systematic, and evidence-based thinking showed notable improvement in the CBL-PBL group. Additionally, the scores on the professional knowledge test reflected a substantial increase in this group. Furthermore, multiple linear regression analysis showed that both CBL-PBL curriculum performance scores and number of weekly article readings significantly influenced the development of clinical thinking skills.

conclusionThe CBL-PBL teaching method positively influenced the clinical thinking skills of assistant general practitioner trainees, with a positive correlation between these skills and course performance in the CBL-PBL curriculum.

trial registrationNot applicable.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceClinical ReasoningPhysician AssistantsProblem-Based LearningThinkingAdultCurriculumEducational MeasurementFemaleHumansMaleAssistant general practitioner trainingCase-based learningClinical thinkingProblem-based learning

Identifiers

PMID39806361
PMCPMC11731422

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.