Trial reportBMC medical education2025
RTCi versus OSBC teaching method in eight-year medical program: a randomized, controlled educational research.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnder the standardized educational research model, a multicentre, randomized controlled educational research was conducted to compare the efficacy of the research, teaching and clinical integration (RTCi) and organ system-based curriculum (OSBC) teaching methods in the eight-year medical program.
methodsA total of 230 eight-year medical program participants from two clinical colleges signed informed consent for educational research, were randomly divided into the RTCi teaching group (N = 115) and the OSBC teaching group (N = 115) and underwent a one-year study under different teaching methods. The two groups were compared in terms of on-schedule graduation, the number of papers published per student, grade-weighted scores and objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) scores.
resultsThe 230 participants were randomly divided into two groups. After one year of RTCi or OSBC teaching, the on-schedule graduation rate of the RTCi group was significantly higher than that of the OSBC group (90% vs. 70%, P = 0.006). The average number of papers published per student in the RTCi group was significantly greater than that in the OSBC group (1.3 vs. 0.7, P = 0.017). The study score of the RTCi group was greater than that of the OSBC group (85.6 vs. 85.2, P = 0.183), although the difference was not statistically significant. The OSCE score of the RTCi group was significantly greater than that of the OSBC group (93 vs. 90, P = 0.029).
conclusionsIn the multicentre randomized controlled teaching study, compared with the OSBC teaching method, the RTCi teaching method significantly improved the on-schedule graduation rate, the number of published papers and the OSCE scores of participants. In terms of study scores, the RTCi teaching method outperformed the OSBC method, with no statistically significant difference. The RTCi teaching method is more conducive to the training and comprehensive development of eight-year medical program participants. In practice, medical education institutions could consider adopting the RTCi teaching method to enhance educational outcomes. Future research should further explore its long-term impact on the career development of medical graduates to strengthen its applicability and sustainability in eight-year medical program.
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.