Trial reportWorld journal of urology2025
Chatgpt vs traditional pedagogy: a comparative study in urological learning.
Trial report in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in urological education: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- The impact of generative artificial intelligence on clinical skills and knowledge acquisition in medical undergraduates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- The Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence in Undergraduate Health Professions Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.JMIR medical education · 2026Pooled it
- The impact of integrating generative artificial intelligence into medical education on short-term learning outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- The Effect of a WhatsApp Chatbot-Based Training Program on Infection Control Knowledge and Practices Among Hemodialysis Nurses: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of nursing management · 2026Trial
- Man plus machine: large language models can augment medical student education.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Article
- ChatGPT-4o with faculty guidance outperforms AI-only and traditional learning in ultrasonography training: a randomized trial.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTechnological evolution is radically changing medical learning models. We evaluated the learning outcomes of urological concepts using ChatGPT, traditional lecture and combined approach.
methodsWe conducted a randomized triple-blind study on 121 medical students with no previous formal curriculum in urology. Students were randomly divided into three study classes with different learning methods: ChatGPT, Lecture and ChatGPT + Lecture. The "adrenal glands" were randomly extracted as the subject of the lessons. Students were evaluated using a thirty-question test.
resultsThe evaluation test median score was higher for students who underwent ChatGPT + Lecture compared with those who had only ChatGPT (10 vs. 12, p = 0.007). Such differences remained statistically significant also in multivariable models adjusting according to year of course, gender and previous ChatGPT experience (estimate: 2.6, p-value = 0.002). For most of the questions (about 70%), the proportion of students correctly answering was higher in the ChatGPT + Lecture learning groups than in the other groups.
conclusionChatGPT loses its potential if used without a previous background. The limits of scientific reliability persist and a teacher-guided method is still essential. ChatGPT + traditional lecture gives more effective results than the single traditional lecture also allowing a better use of the chatbot.
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.