ArticleBMC medical education2025
Construction of research feedback experimental teaching mode for medical undergraduate students and comparative study with traditional experimental teaching mode.
Article 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThere were serious problems in the implementation process of basic medical experimental teaching, such as simple content and low innovation of experimental projects, which affected the cultivation of students' basic medical experimental skills and innovative abilities. Regarding the existing issues, we constructed the research feedback experimental teaching model (RFETM) and evaluated its teaching effectiveness.
methodWe reformed the traditional experimental teaching mode (TETM) and constructed RFETM. Undergraduate students from six classes of the 2023 clinical major of integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine at Anhui University of Chinese Medicine were included in this study and divided into a control group (Classes 1-3, 197 students) and an experimental group (Classes 4-6, 193 students). The control group adopted the TETM, while the experimental group adopted the newly constructed RFETM. The teaching effectiveness of RFETM were evaluated through basic medical experimental skills assessment (BMESA) and questionnaire survey.
resultWe constructed RFETM from the teaching syllabus, experimental teaching projects (derived from the research results of our institution), teaching assessment, teaching conditions, and textbook compilation. There was no difference in the population composition and experimental technical background between the two groups of students, which did not interfere with the statistical results of this study. The experimental group's students scored significantly higher than the control group in the BMESA and RFETM questionnaire surveys. Open-ended comments showed that students have high evaluations of RFETM and believed that the RFETM reform was successful.
conclusionThis study indicated that RFETM significantly improved the basic medical experimental skills of medical undergraduate students and promoted their innovation ability. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.