Trial reportBMC medical education2025
Situational simulation teaching can effectively enhance the clinical thinking ability of residents.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the efficacy of situational simulation teaching (SST) in enhancing clinical thinking competencies among residents.
methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted with second-year residents (n = 121) during their rotation (May-August 2025). Participants were allocated to either an intervention group (n = 57, receiving SST) or a control group (n = 64, conventional training). Pre- and post-intervention assessments evaluated clinical thinking performance. Faculty assessments using the entrust able professional activities (EPAs) and Mini-clinical evaluation exercise (Mini-CEX) were completed within 2 weeks post-training, supplemented by resident satisfaction surveys.
resultsBoth groups demonstrated significant post-intervention improvement in overall clinical thinking scores (all P < 0.05), except for the "Ethics and Professionalism" domain in controls (P = 0.12).The intervention group outperformed the control group in total clinical thinking scores and all sub-dimensions (P < 0.05), with higher EPAs scores, EPA pass rates, and Mini-CEX total scores (all P < 0.05). Resident satisfaction (content, resources, interaction, and teaching methods) was also significantly higher in the intervention group (P < 0.05).
conclusionSST significantly enhances clinical thinking development in residency programs.
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.