ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2026
A comparative analysis of descriptive podcasts vs. interview-based podcasts in enhancing clinical reasoning skills of undergraduate medical students.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & Objective: Audio podcasts offer flexibility and align with adult learning principles, yet their role in enhancing clinical reasoning and optimal delivery format remains unclear. This study compared descriptive and interview-based podcasts to evaluate their effectiveness in improving clinical reasoning in undergraduate medical students and determine the superior podcast format. Methodology: The study conducted from March to May 2024 used a pretest-posttest crossover design to evaluate the effectiveness of two podcast formats (descriptive and interview-based) in enhancing clinical reasoning skills among 93 fourth year MBBS students at Islamic International Medical College during their surgery clerkship. Ethical approval was obtained, and participants were randomly divided into two groups (A and B). Four podcasts, approximately 10 minutes each, were created on acute appendicitis and acute cholecystitis. In Round-1, a pretest on acute appendicitis was followed by Group-A listening to a descriptive podcast and Group-B to an interview-based podcast, with a posttest conducted afterward. In Round-2, the groups crossed over for acute cholecystitis, followed by a posttest. Data were analyzed using SPSS, with paired t-tests comparing pretest and posttest scores within groups and independent t-tests comparing performance between formats. Results: Both groups demonstrated notable increases in knowledge. In Rounds 1 and 2, Group-A's mean pretest/posttest score differences were 4.33 and 6.91, respectively, but Group-B were 8.00 and 6.97 (p<0.001). The advantage of the interview-based approach was demonstrated by independent sample t-tests (p<0.001). Conclusion: Clinical reasoning abilities can be improved with the use of podcasts. Compared to the descriptive style, the interview-based format was more successful, indicating that it may be used as an additional learning aid in medical education.
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.