Trial reportBMC medical education2025
Exploration of CBL combined with "Metronomic" online classroom in thoracic trauma and closed chest drainage teaching.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraditional educational methods often fail to adequately impart practical skills or foster initiative, highlighting the need for innovative teaching approaches. Ebbinghaus’ memory curve demonstrates a pattern of rapid forgetting, suggesting that incorporating this principle into education may improve outcomes. However, research on its application in medical training remains limited.
methodThis prospective study enrolled 43 fifth-year students from the eight-year medical program at Sun Yat-sen University’s School of Medicine. Following randomization, students were allocated to either a traditional Case-Based Learning (CBL) group or a CBL combined with Metronomic Online Classroom (CBL + MOC) group. Both groups completed courses on thoracic trauma and closed chest drainage. Baseline assessments were conducted to confirm group comparability. After the intervention, students’ exam performance and self-confidence were measured, and subjective course satisfaction was evaluated.
resultsCompared with the CBL group, students in the CBL + MOC group achieved significantly higher exam scores (102.50 ± 19.66 vs. 86.58 ± 24.95, p = 0.04), particularly in mastery of fundamental knowledge (39.38 ± 7.04 vs. 33.16 ± 8.37, p = 0.02). The CBL + MOC model did not significantly improve self-confidence. However, missing offline CBL sessions was associated with reduced self-confidence (p = 0.01), especially in communication, collaboration, and critical thinking. Course satisfaction was unaffected by the teaching model.
conclusionThe CBL + MOC model enhances students’ academic outcomes more effectively than traditional CBL while maintaining course satisfaction. Nonetheless, offline CBL remains vital for sustaining self-confidence, particularly in skills central to medical practice.
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.