ArticleBMC oral health2026
Assessing a virtual scenario-based training system for enhancing clinical reasoning and communication in dental education.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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.
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
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to assess the effectiveness of a virtual scenario-based clinical reasoning training system to improve clinical reasoning and communication skills among dental students.
methodsSeventy fourth year dental students, who had previously completed dental basic science courses and theoretical components of clinical dentistry courses, engaged in a four-week clinical communication and reasoning training programme using the virtual scenario-based clinical reasoning training system. All students underwent a communication skills and clinical reasoning assessment before and after using this virtual training system, and their scores, including each module and total scores, were compared using Paired t tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. The level of significance was P < 0.05. Students were asked to provide feedback through a survey to identify the usability and their perceived benefits or drawbacks of this system.
resultsAfter using the virtual scenario-based clinical reasoning training system four times with different cases, students’ scores in all modules (history-taking, examination, diagnosis, and treatment) and total scores improved significantly (P < 0.05). Post-training clinical reasoning competence scores (86.13 ± 1.79) were significantly higher than pre-training scores (74.66 ± 2.18), and communication skills also showed significant enhancement (P < 0.05). The average System Usability Scale (SUS) score was 70.14 ± 4.96, indicating above-average system usability. Most students were satisfied with the system (92.86%), acknowledged its advantages of innovative and interesting lectures and effectiveness in improving clinical reasoning (71.43%) and communication skills (67.14%).
conclusionThe application of the virtual scenario-based clinical reasoning training system in clinical communication and reasoning training programme can improve students’ clinical reasoning and communication skills.
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.