ArticleBMC medical education2026
Comparison of clinical preceptorship and small group discussion as educational modalities in modern neurosurgical education: outcomes and perspectives.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeurosurgical education is shifting toward methods that foster clinical reasoning and decision-making beyond traditional lectures. Small group discussions (SGD) promote collaborative learning, while clinical preceptorships (CP) offer individualized, hands-on training. However, limited research has compared their effectiveness in undergraduate neurosurgical education. This study evaluates the impact of CP and SGD on knowledge acquisition and clinical preparedness among sixth-year medical students.
methodsIn 2024, a quasi-experimental study involving 48 participants was conducted, including 31 sixth-year medical students assigned to either CP (n = 15) or SGD (n = 16), and 17 recently graduated physicians who served as the control group. Both groups completed pre- and post-intervention assessments that covered neurosurgical theory and clinical scenarios, based on the minimum requirements set by the Medical Council. Post-intervention outcomes were analyzed using t-tests. Correlation analysis examined the relationship between time and topic-specific retention. The control group consisted of interns rotating in the department of surgery who trained via the traditional method.
resultsPost-intervention, both CP and SGD improved post-test scores. The SGD format required 1.5 h for 5–6 students, whereas the CP format required 1 h per student, with this difference being statistically significant (p < 0.001). CP students, however, significantly outperformed SGD in CT interpretation (85.0% vs. 70.0%, p < 0.01) and neurosurgical management modules (80.4% vs. 40.2%, p < 0.001). CP participants also demonstrated greater knowledge gains and committed fewer conceptual errors, particularly in etiology and management. A significant negative correlation was observed between time since the intervention and knowledge retention (r = − 0.739, p < 0.001).
conclusionNeurosurgical education benefits from both SGD and CP. SGD enhances conceptual understanding and evidence-based learning, while CP strengthens hands-on application, CT interpretation, and management skills. To reinforce essential neurosurgical knowledge, a refresher session is recommended six months after the initial training.
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.