Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41786338›Full record

ArticleThe clinical teacher2026

Clinical Clu-Dr: A Scalable Gamified Tool for Clinical Reasoning Practice.

Richard D Horniblow, Linda Lefièvre, Louise Hammersley, Jacqueline Morgan, Lucas Tselepis, Rosanna Ghinai, Joseph Wheeler, Dawn Jackson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The clinical teacher, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Richard D HorniblowDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, School of Infection, Inflammation, and Immunology, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3996-9236
Linda LefièvreDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, School of Infection, Inflammation, and Immunology, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Louise HammersleyBirmingham Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-3955-1469
Jacqueline MorganBirmingham Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8271-2409
Lucas TselepisBirmingham Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5476-3949
Rosanna GhinaiBirmingham Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Joseph WheelerNew Cross Hospital, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6737-6330
Dawn JacksonBirmingham Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3198-5987

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly development of clinical reasoning (CR) is essential but difficult to embed within preclinical medical curricula. Limited clinical exposure can hinder integration of basic and clinical sciences, whereas tutor-led question-and-answer formats may limit engagement, and case-based approaches often rely on clinical facilitators. Clinical Clu-Dr (CC) was developed as a low-resource, gamified approach to support early CR practice in a scalable format deliverable by both clinical and non-clinical educators.

methodsAdapting the Cluedo concept, CC presents learners with a patient, potential diagnoses and 14-16 mixed-format 'clues' (e.g., lab results, imaging and lifestyle data). In small groups, students analyse and share clues, construct differential diagnoses and confirm a final diagnosis. The design draws on scaffolded learning, cognitive integration and gamification. EVALUATION: Evaluation combined post-module student surveys (n = 128) with reflective facilitator feedback (n = 6; clinical/non-clinical) collected across the delivery of 78 sessions. Surveys captured perceptions of engagement, confidence and clinical integration of the foundational biomedical science teaching, whereas facilitator reflections explored feasibility and delivery. Students reported higher perceived engagement and confidence. Facilitators noted initial challenges adapting to a student-led format but reported strong, inclusive engagement. IMPLICATIONS: CC provides a scalable approach for embedding opportunities for CR practice in preclinical education. Although findings are based on self-reported perceptions, the approach supports engagement and confidence. Successful implementation depends on careful alignment of clues with the module's basic science content and close collaboration between clinical and non-clinical educators. Clinical expertise was not required for effective delivery.

Indexed as

Clinical ReasoningEducation, Medical, UndergraduateStudents, MedicalClinical CompetenceCurriculumHumansLearning

Identifiers

PMID41786338
PMCPMC12962845

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.