Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40101183›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2025

Impact of Clinical Decision Support Systems on Medical Students' Case-Solving Performance: Comparison Study with a Focus Group.

Marco Montagna, Filippo Chiabrando, Rebecca De Lorenzo, Patrizia Rovere Querini, Medical Students

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

5 authors.

Marco Montagna *School of Medicine, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 58, Milan, 20132, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0907-7640
Filippo Chiabrando *School of Medicine, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 58, Milan, 20132, Italy.ORCID 0009-0004-3680-7559
Rebecca De LorenzoSchool of Medicine, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 58, Milan, 20132, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1281-7996
Patrizia Rovere QueriniSchool of Medicine, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 58, Milan, 20132, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2615-3649
Medical Students

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Health care practitioners use clinical decision support systems (CDSS) as an aid in the crucial task of clinical reasoning and decision-making. Traditional CDSS are online repositories (ORs) and clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Recently, large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have emerged as potential alternatives. They have proven to be powerful, innovative tools, yet they are not devoid of worrisome risks. Objective: This study aims to explore how medical students perform in an evaluated clinical case through the use of different CDSS tools. Methods: The authors randomly divided medical students into 3 groups, CPG, n=6 (38%); OR, n=5 (31%); and ChatGPT, n=5 (31%); and assigned each group a different type of CDSS for guidance in answering prespecified questions, assessing how students' speed and ability at resolving the same clinical case varied accordingly. External reviewers evaluated all answers based on accuracy and completeness metrics (score: 1-5). The authors analyzed and categorized group scores according to the skill investigated: differential diagnosis, diagnostic workup, and clinical decision-making. Results: Answering time showed a trend for the ChatGPT group to be the fastest. The mean scores for completeness were as follows: CPG 4.0, OR 3.7, and ChatGPT 3.8 (P=.49). The mean scores for accuracy were as follows: CPG 4.0, OR 3.3, and ChatGPT 3.7 (P=.02). Aggregating scores according to the 3 students' skill domains, trends in differences among the groups emerge more clearly, with the CPG group that performed best in nearly all domains and maintained almost perfect alignment between its completeness and accuracy. Conclusions: This hands-on session provided valuable insights into the potential perks and associated pitfalls of LLMs in medical education and practice. It suggested the critical need to include teachings in medical degree courses on how to properly take advantage of LLMs, as the potential for misuse is evident and real.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceClinical ReasoningDecision Support Systems, ClinicalProblem SolvingStudents, MedicalClinical Decision-MakingEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFemaleHumansMaleAIalgorithmartificial intelligenceCDSSchatbotchatGPTclinical decision-makingclinical decision support systemsdecision supportdecision support tooldeep learninginnovative teachinglarge language modelsLLMsmachine learningmedical educationmedical teachingMLpractical modelpredictive analyticspredictive modelpredictive systemteaching environment

Identifiers

PMID40101183
PMCPMC11936302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.