Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40786092›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025

Enhancing clinical reasoning skills through tailored CPC in pathology laboratory instruction.

Shanshan Li, Xufei Tan, Jie Fang, Jingyin Dong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Shanshan LiSchool of Medicine, Hangzhou City University, Hangzhou, China.
Xufei TanSchool of Medicine, Hangzhou City University, Hangzhou, China.
Jie FangSchool of Medicine, Hangzhou City University, Hangzhou, China.
Jingyin DongSchool of Medicine, Hangzhou City University, Hangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In medical education, fostering students' clinical reasoning skills is crucial for assessing their clinical proficiency. However, developing a Clinical Pathological Conference (CPC) model tailored to the unique needs of early-stage learners remains an intriguing avenue for exploration. Methods: This study aimed to enhance the clinical reasoning and critical thinking abilities of early-stage medical students in pathology laboratory instruction through the introduction of a customized CPC teaching method. A total of 279 undergraduate students from the clinical medicine program at Hangzhou City University participated in the study. The 2021 cohort ( Results: Students who underwent the CPC case teaching method exhibited higher levels of enthusiasm, participation, learning efficiency, and clinical reasoning abilities compared to those following traditional teaching methods. Quantitative results also showed improvements in post-class case analysis and final examination scores. Qualitative feedback indicated that the method was generally well-received, although some students suggested improvements in group collaboration and personalized guidance. Conclusion: The course-specific CPC teaching method effectively enhances students' learning enthusiasm, classroom participation, learning efficiency, and clinical thinking abilities in pathology laboratory instruction. These findings pave the way for future research to explore the design and implementation of CPC methods in other foundational medical courses and to evaluate their effectiveness.

Indexed as

clinical reasoning skillscourse-specific CPC teachingearly-stage studentsfoundational medical coursespathology laboratory instruction

Identifiers

PMID40786092
PMCPMC12331614

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.