ArticleBMC medical education2026
Evaluation of bilingual Chinese-English instruction in endocrinology system courses.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo evaluate the implementation effect of Chinese-English bilingual instruction in endocrinology system courses.
methodsStudents in the endocrine course with bilingual Chinese-English instruction form the experimental group (Group B, n = 581), while those with traditional Chinese teaching serve as the control group (Group A, n = 574). The effectiveness of bilingual instruction was evaluated through theoretical tests and questionnaires.
resultsThe theoretical test results showed that Group B, which received bilingual instruction, had higher scores than Group A, which received traditional Chinese instruction. This indicates that bilingual instruction can enhance students’ understanding and performance in endocrinology courses. The two groups were confirmed to have a comparable level of English proficiency at the baseline, with no significant difference in the passing rate of the National College English Test Band 4 (Group A: 81.7%; Group B: 82.3%; p = 0.87). Most students believed that bilingual instruction was necessary and that the teaching reform had clear objectives. The students also highlighted the importance of their English proficiency and the need for effective teaching methods.
conclusionsThe results show that bilingual teaching plays a positive role in improving students’ professional knowledge and English proficiency and stimulating learning interests. However, there are also polarization problems caused by differences in students’ English foundations.
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.