ArticleBMC medical education2025
Implementing bilingual education in gastrointestinal surgery: theory, practice, and insights from China.
Article 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
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured Chinese-English bilingual teaching model in the context of gastrointestinal surgery education, focusing on both theoretical learning and clinical practice in Chinese setting.
methodsA total of 100 medical students undergoing training in gastrointestinal surgery at Jiangmen Central Hospital were randomly assigned to a bilingual group (n = 50) or a control group (n = 50). The bilingual group received integrated instruction combining Chinese and English materials, including bilingual explanations of terminology, interactive case discussions, and clinically applied language practice. The control group received traditional monolingual (Chinese) teaching. Outcomes were assessed through clinical competency examinations-evaluating theoretical knowledge, literature analysis, and practical skills-and a teaching quality questionnaire.
resultsThe bilingual group scored significantly higher in overall clinical competency (81.10 ± 7.19 vs. 73.50 ± 8.01, P < 0.001), with notable improvements in frontier literature analysis (25.24 ± 2.40 vs. 21.36 ± 3.26, P < 0.001) and clinical practice skills (24.18 ± 2.49 vs. 21.18 ± 3.10, P < 0.001). Theoretical knowledge scores were comparable between groups (P = 0.458). Questionnaire results indicated significantly greater satisfaction in the bilingual group across all domains, including professional English mastery (p < 0.001), with 76% overall satisfaction versus 32% in the control group (P < 0.001).
conclusionThe integrated bilingual education model significantly enhances competencies in literature interpretation, clinical reasoning, and student engagement without compromising acquisition of core knowledge. These findings support the adoption of bilingual strategies in medical education systems where English is a foreign language, highlighting its potential to cultivate globally competent surgical professionals.
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.