Trial reportBMC medical education2025
Combination of mentor-based and resident-based learning may benefit to improving the ability of clinical practice in resident training.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMentor-based learning (MBL) is common teaching method in medical resident training and presents many shortcomings such as few practice opportunities and lack of efficiency. This study proposed the combination of mentor-based and resident-based learning (CMRL) and explored the role of CMRL in improving the effect of medical resident training.
methodsSeventy-two residents who participated in standardized resident training (SRT) were recruited and randomly divided into the CMRL and MBL groups. The CMRL group adopted CMRL and MBL group adopted MBL for daily medical teaching for four weeks. The primary outcome measure was the difference in trainee's scores of comprehensive analysis ability between CMRL group and MBL group after teaching. The secondary outcome measures were the differences in trainee's scores of diagnosis ability, prescribing medical orders ability, and incorrect operations, as well as the differences in questionnaire scores of the trainee's communication skills and patient care between CMRL group and MBL group after teaching.
resultsThe ability scores of CMRL group after teaching were higher than those before teaching (ability of diagnosis, 78.75 ± 17.83% vs. 67.08 ± 24.10%, p < 0.05; ability of comprehensive analysis 88.27 ± 10.95% vs. 69.56 ± 13.11%, p < 0.05; ability of prescribing medical orders, 90.03 ± 9.63% vs. 78.31 ± 10.28%, p < 0.05; respectively). In addition, scores of CMRL group in patient's evaluation on trainees after teaching were higher than that before teaching (communication skills 7.78 ± 1.02 scores vs. 6.22 ± 1.62 scores, p < 0.05; patient care 8.69 ± 0.92 scores vs. 6.92 ± 1.65 scores, p < 0.05; respectively). Meanwhile, the scores of CMRL group in ability of comprehensive analysis or prescribing medical orders after teaching were higher than those of MBL group. Moreover, scores of the trainee's communication skills and patient care in CMRL group were higher than those in MBL group after teaching.
conclusionCMRL is beneficial to improving residents' ability of comprehensive analysis and prescribing medical orders as well as residents' ability of communication skills and patient care in SRT. CMRL may be beneficial to improving the ability of clinical practice.
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.