ArticleBMC medical education2025
Clinical simulation as an effective teaching model in the Special Needs Dentistry course.
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.
- Special needs dentistry training and education for preparedness in the oral health therapy curriculum.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical simulation is a teaching-learning methodology that shows positive results in clinical learning, emphasizing the importance of active learning due to its proximity to real-life professional settings. The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of clinical simulation as a learning tool in the course of Special Needs Dentistry and Geriatric Dentistry Courses at one Dental School in Spain. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of six different scenarios were performed. Evaluation of the students was carried out using assessment checklist, the data were collected item by item, recording the evaluation provided (Yes/No) by the three evaluators in the initial simulation (PRE) and six months later (POST). Data analysis was performed using R version 4.0.3 and Bartlett's test and one-way ANOVA were used.
resultsAt the re-evaluation six months later, all participants achieved a significantly higher score on the checklist assessment. In all scenarios, there was adequate concordance among evaluators, with no statistically significant differences.
conclusionsHigh-fidelity clinical simulation helps improve students' clinical performance over time, particularly their ability to apply theoretical knowledge in practice.The average scores obtained by students were higher in the final phase (six months later) compared to the initial phase.
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.