ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Knowledge and attitudes toward clinical laboratory medicine among undergraduate medical interns in China: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Educational strategies for enhancing medical students' competency in laboratory medicine practice: a scoping review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Development and validation of a questionnaire for laboratory medicine knowledge and attitudes in clinical medical interns.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Undergraduate clinical medical interns often lack systematic laboratory medicine training, potentially impacting their diagnostic reasoning and patient safety. This study aimed to assess the perceived knowledge and attitudes toward clinical laboratory medicine among this population in China, addressing a significant gap in medical education evaluation. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from March to April 2025 across 11 general hospitals in Eastern China (Shanghai, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Suzhou, Ningbo, Xuzhou, Shaoxing, Yangzhou, Huzhou, and Taizhou). The self-developed and validated 13-item Clinical Laboratory Knowledge and Attitudes Questionnaire (CLKAQ) was structured in three domains: Knowledge, Attitudes and Suggestions. All 303 clinical interns completed the instrument. SPSS 25.0 and AMOS 26.0 were used. Descriptive statistics (frequencies/percentages for qualitative data; mean ± SD for quantitative data) summarized characteristics, knowledge, and attitudes. Scale reliability and validity were confirmed. Normality was assessed via Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Group comparisons (gender, age, city tier) employed Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Spearman correlation examined knowledge-attitude relationships. Multiple response and content analysis supplemented quantitative findings. Results: The mean self-perceived knowledge scale score (5-point Likert scale) among the 303 interns was 2.22 ± 0.424. The mean attitude scale score (5-point Likert scale) was 4.05 ± 0.312. Significant differences emerged in key competencies: Gender disparities in report interpretation (Q3), perceived importance of laboratory knowledge (Q5), and learning motivation (Q7); Age-group variations in perceived knowledge adequacy (Q1), (Q5) and (Q7); Interns from third-tier cities demonstrated consistently higher self-perceived competence across all knowledge and attitude dimensions than those in tier-1/2 cities ( Conclusion: Undergraduate clinical interns demonstrated suboptimal clinical laboratory knowledge but expressed highly positive attitudes toward learning. This underscores the critical need to enhance clinical laboratory training during clerkship. Implementing measures to improve knowledge is necessary. These findings inform curriculum optimization and educational strategy development for clinical continuing education.
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.