Trial reportBMC medical education2025
Effectiveness of deliberate practices versus conventional lecture in trauma training for medical students.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA mastery of life-threatening trauma procedures is important for medical students aiming to become proficient physicians. Thus, this study compares the effectiveness of deliberate practice with that of conventional lecture methods in teaching such students these essential skills.
methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted with 48 first- to third-year medical students at the Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital at Navamindradhiraj University (Thailand). The participants were randomly assigned to either the deliberate practice group (n = 24) or the conventional lecture group (n = 24). The primary outcome was the students' scores on the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), whereas the secondary outcome was their overall grades. Moreover, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to control for the impacts of gender and academic year.
resultsThe deliberate practice group had significantly higher OSCE scores (mean = 69.79, SD = 9.49) than did the conventional lecture group (mean = 51.38, SD = 14.59), with a p value of 0.000002. Additionally, the deliberate practice group had no clear failures or seven good passes, whereas the conventional lecture group had five clear failures and no good passes. Moreover, the ANCOVA results indicated that the type of training had a significant positive effect on the students' examination scores, independent of gender and academic year (F (4, 43) = 7.44, p = 0.0001).
conclusionDeliberate practice is significantly more effective than the conventional lecture method in teaching life-threatening trauma procedures to medical students. The implication of these findings is that implementing deliberate practice in medical education can enhance the competencies of students, improve their preparedness for real-world clinical settings, and produce better patient outcomes. However, future research should examine the broader applications and long-term benefits of this method in medical training.
trial registrationTCTR20240816009.
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.