ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2025
10 tips for clinical educators in designing and delivering learning experiences to improve clinical reasoning for medical students.
Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Educational strategies for enhancing medical students' competency in laboratory medicine practice: a scoping review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical reasoning processes involve gathering and interpreting information, creating differential diagnoses and testing hypotheses to inform and guide patient management. Effective clinical reasoning is an essential graduate outcome for medical students to ensure safe and efficient care of patients. In the clinical setting, a large proportion of hospital-related adverse events are attributed to errors in cognitive processes rather than knowledge, including diagnostic reasoning and decision-making. Teaching clinical reasoning is challenging due to its implicit nature, typically relying on internal thinking processes, pattern recognition and the use of prior clinical experiences. Current conventional teaching relies on student-driven application of clinical reasoning during their rotations as part of a hidden curriculum, which can be highly variable, unstructured, non-standardised, with limited oversight from faculty and with few opportunities for feedback. Furthermore, current barriers exist, including difficulties in teaching and assessing clinical reasoning. Due to this, many educators and faculty agree upon the significance of embedding explicit teaching and assessment of clinical reasoning into the curriculum, however the best approach remains poorly characterised. Methods: A narrative synthesis was undertaken from the current literature and the authors' collective experience. The synthesis distils this information into ten practical tips to guide design, integration and innovation of clinical reasoning teaching in medical education. Results: Ten tips were identified to support educators' efforts in embedding clinical reasoning into curriculum design and teaching. Together, these ten tips promote explicit, reflective and contextual clinical reasoning learning within the contemporary medical curriculum. Conclusions: Clinical reasoning requires deliberate, longitudinal and student-centred approaches that are integrated within authentic situated learning experiences. The ten tips provide avenues for more evidence-based adoption of effective learning environments that focus on clinical reasoning skills development.
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.