Trial reportJMIR medical education2025
Virtual Standardized Patients for Improving Clinical Thinking Ability Training in Residents: Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in JMIR medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Large Language Model-Powered Virtual Standardized Patients on History-Taking Among Undergraduate Medical Students: Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- A narrative discussion on the impact of respiratory infectious diseases on dental education in China: implications for curriculum design and student outcomes.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
- A study of the effectiveness of the CBL combined with SP in the standardized training of general medicine residents.Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical internal medicine practice training traditionally relies on case-based teaching. This approach limits the development of students' clinical thinking skills. It also places significant pressure on instructors. Virtual standardized patients (VSPs) could offer an alternative solution. However, evidence on their feasibility and effectiveness remains limited. Objective: This study aims to use the "VSPs in general practice" interactive diagnostic and teaching system, which uses VSPs to provide 3D virtual simulated patients and mimic virtual clinical scenarios. Medical students are trained through system-preset cases. This study aims to establish the clinical application of VSPs through a "VSPs in general practice" system and compare its effectiveness with traditional teaching in improving students' clinical thinking ability. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted from October 20, 2022, to October 20, 2024. A total of 60 medical students interning at Quzhou People's Hospital were enrolled and divided into 2 groups: the experimental group receiving VSP training (30/60, 50%) and the control group receiving traditional academic training (30/60, 50%). The teaching effectiveness was evaluated using basic knowledge assessments and virtual system scoring. After completing the course, students were surveyed with a questionnaire to assess their satisfaction with the course. Results: All enrolled medical students completed the study. In the evaluation of training effectiveness, the experimental group showed significantly greater improvement in theoretical scores compared to the control group (mean 17.07, SD 4.24 vs mean 10.67, SD 4.91; F1, 59=29.20; Cohen d=1.15; 95% CI 12.43-15.31; P<.001); the total score improvement in the virtual clinical thinking training system test was also significantly better in the experimental group than in the control group (mean 42.60, SD 9.56 vs mean 31.63, SD 7.24; F1, 59=25.10; Cohen d=1.09; 95% CI 34.51-39.72; P<.001). Specifically, improvements in consultation skills (mean 8.76, SD 1.67 vs mean 7.66, SD 2.08; F1, 59=31.09; Cohen d=0.55; 95% CI 7.70-8.70; P<.001), overall objective improvement (mean 11.97, SD 2.77 vs mean 8.15, SD 2.62; F1, 59=30.08; Cohen d=1.16; 95% CI 9.21-10.91; P<.001), initial diagnostic ability (mean 8.74, SD 1.67 vs mean 7.66, SD 2.08; F1, 59=4.91; Cohen d=0.55, 95% CI 7.70-8.70; P=.03), and ability to provide patient treatment (mean 7.23, SD 2.41 vs mean 5.72, SD 2.19; F1, 59=6.42; Cohen d=0.63; 95% CI 5.85-7.01; P=.01) were significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group. The questionnaire results indicated that 90% (27/30) of the students who participated in the VSPs' training believed it could enhance their clinical thinking abilities. Conclusions: VSPs reinforce the foundational knowledge of internal medicine among medical students and enhance their clinical thinking abilities, as well as improve their capacity for independent work. The VSP system is feasible, practical, and cost-effective, making it worthy of further promotion in clinical 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.