ArticleMedical science educator2025
One-Minute Preceptor, SNAPPS, and Traditional Teaching in the Acquisition of Clinical Reasoning Skills by Medical Students.
Article in Medical science educator, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Effect of structured preceptorship on clinical reasoning of pediatric residents in Indonesia: a randomized controlled trial.Korean journal of medical education · 2026Trial
- Introduction of the One-Minute Preceptor Model for Teaching Pathology Postgraduate Students.Cureus · 2026Article
- Transforming surgical ward rounds: constructivist pedagogy, structured models, and intelligent technologies.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Guiding Midwives to Precept Students: Two Evidence-Based Models.Journal of midwifery & women's healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite growing evidence on teaching tools to improve clinical reasoning (CR), there is still uncertainty about which tool is more appropriate and leads to better outcomes. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of one-min preceptor (OMP) and SNAPPS (summarize relevant findings, narrow the differential, analyze, probe the preceptor, plan management, select issues for self-study) models compared to traditional teaching in CR skills acquisition by medical students. Methods: A randomized controlled trial where students were enrolled into three arms: OMP, SNAPPS, and traditional teaching (control arm). They were evaluated before and after their pediatrics clerkship rotation, both in a simulated environment and with real patients, on several CR-related outcomes and the quality of clinical case presentations. Results: A total of 256 students were randomized (86 control, 83 OMP, 87 SNAPPS), with no significant baseline differences. After the clerkship rotation, both intervention arms performed significantly better than the control arm. SNAPPS produced better results than OMP in the simulated environment for discussion time, case presentation quality score, student performance score, and the number of differential diagnoses presented and justified. In real medical settings, SNAPPS was superior to OMP for case presentation quality score. OMP was better evaluated than SNAPPS regarding satisfaction with the use of the tool, and both tools were superior to traditional teaching. Conclusions: Clinical reasoning is an important outcome for medical training, and the use of CR tools can improve student performance. While SNAPPS had better results in CR-related outcomes and clinical case presentation, OMP received higher satisfaction scores. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-024-02241-3.
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.