ArticleBMC medical education2025
Treatment-focused clinical reasoning in medical students: relationship with academic success and professional commitment.
Article 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical reasoning is a fundamental skill for medical students, enabling them to integrate knowledge and make informed treatment decisions. While previous studies have primarily focused on diagnostic reasoning, this study examines the relationship between treatment-focused clinical reasoning, academic performance, and professional commitment.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted with final-year medical students (n = 53). Clinical reasoning skills were assessed using a structured case-based evaluation involving diabetes mellitus and hypertension management scenarios. Professional commitment was measured using the commitment to the profession of medicine scale, and academic performance was determined by cumulative grade point average. Correlation and multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine relationships among these variables.
resultsThe mean clinical reasoning score was 13.06 out of 54, indicating substantial challenges in treatment-based reasoning. Students performed better in the hypertension case (7.15/28) compared to the diabetes mellitus case (5.91/26). The most frequent difficulties included identifying hypoglycaemia-inducing drugs, recognizing contraindicated medications in renal impairment and heart failure, and selecting appropriate individualized therapies. While academic performance did not show a significant correlation with clinical reasoning scores (p > .05), a strong positive relationship was observed between professional commitment and clinical reasoning ability (r = .722, p < .05). Regression analysis indicated that both professional commitment and academic achievement significantly predicted clinical reasoning performance (R² = 0.560, p < .05), collectively explaining 56% of the variance.
conclusionThese findings highlight the need for enhancing treatment-based reasoning education in medical curricula, as students exhibited difficulties in pharmacotherapy decision-making, especially in integrating contraindications and individualized treatment considerations. Professional commitment appears to be a stronger predictor of clinical reasoning than academic performance alone. Medical education strategies that reinforce patient-centred reasoning and professional engagement may improve preparedness for real-world therapeutic decision-making.
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.