Trial reportScientific reports2025
A mixed methods study comparing video based and paper based diagnostic error education for medical students.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diagnostic errors, which can negatively impact patient outcomes, require better prevention strategies. Simulated patient case studies can be useful educational tools for medical students to reduce diagnostic errors. We compared the effectiveness of video- and paper-based diagnostic error case studies as teaching modalities for medical students. In this mixed-method, non-blinded randomized controlled trial, we recruited Japanese medical students. The participants (N = 113) received either video- (n = 57) or paper-based (n = 56) materials presenting five diagnostic error cases of over 30-min duration. Knowledge about diagnostic errors, motivation, and provider responsibility beliefs of diagnostic errors were assessed pre- and post-intervention. Participants in the video-based group reported greater improvement in self-perceived knowledge about diagnostic errors compared with those in the paper-based group (mean change: 1.6 ± 1.9 vs. 0.9 ± 1.3; P = 0.019). However, after adjusting for baseline scores using analysis of covariance, no significant between-group difference was found. Seventeen themes and subcategories corresponding to the six cognitive process dimensions of Fink's taxonomy of significant learning were identified. The most prevalent themes related to immersive learning style, application of diagnostic error process, and considering diverse perspectives on diagnostic errors. Video-based instructions might promote more immersive learning experiences and enhance recognition of high-risk diseases and red-flag situations among medical students.
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.