ArticleScientific reports2025
Development of a digital peer-feedback tool for clinical skills training: a pilot study with second-year medical students.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Effects of digital versus face-to-face peer support on clinical skills: a three-arm randomized trial.NPJ digital medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Providing structured feedback in medical education is essential for skill development. However, limitations such as increasing student numbers, reducing trainer availability, and a lack of systematic feedback hinder effective learning. Digital peer-feedback tools offer a potential solution by enabling interactive and scalable assessment. This study introduces Medifeeding, a video-based peer-feedback digital tool designed to enhance clinical skills training among medical students. This study employed an exploratory convergent mixed-methods pilot feasibility design. Medifeeding was developed following Moonen's 3-Space model and tested with 31 s-year medical students at Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University. Data sources: a post-use online form (educational benefit yes/no, a forced ranking of 10 attributes, and a 5-point overall rating), semistructured interviews (n = 24), and one focus group (n = 5). Quantitative analyses included frequency analysis, the Friedman test with Kendall's W and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (Holm-adjusted). Qualitative data were analyzed thematically (Strauss's framework). Strands were integrated in a joint display to generate meta-inferences on acceptability and usability. 90% (28/31) reported educational benefit. The overall rating averaged 4.13/5 (90% rated 4-5). For the feature ranking, the Friedman test showed an overall difference (**χ
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.