Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41859141›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026

Challenges and coping strategies for achieving terminology precision in EMI medical writing among Saudi medical students.

Ahmed Hamad Aldafas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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

1 author.

Ahmed Hamad AldafasCollege of Science and Health Professions, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examines how Saudi medical students manage the accuracy demands of English academic writing in an English-medium instruction (EMI) context, with particular attention to medical terminology work and the instructional conditions that shape students' strategy use. Although EMI is institutionalized in Saudi medical education, many students enter university from Arabic-medium schooling, making early academic writing in English a site of heightened risk for misrepresenting medical meaning. Using a qualitative, interpretive design, data were generated through semi-structured interviews with 15 s-year medical students enrolled in an English academic writing course. Classroom observations in two course sections were used to contextualize participation norms and routine classroom structures. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Findings show that students experience medical terminology and meaning precision as the central challenge in writing about medical topics in English. To manage this challenge, they report recursive strategies across planning, drafting, and revision, including Arabic-mediated idea development, translation for conceptual clarification, stepwise terminology verification, and peer-supported checking before finalizing English phrasing. Findings also indicate that course expectations, feedback, and participation norms shape whether strategies are enacted publicly or remain private, with Arabic-mediated meaning work often occurring internally, through personal note-taking, or through peer interaction. Overall, the findings position meaning verification and terminology control as central to disciplinary writing competence and suggest the value of instructional routines and feedback practices that make accuracy-oriented verification more systematic and learnable within EMI medical writing.

Indexed as

academic writingEnglish-medium instructionmeaning precisionmedical educationterminologytranslanguaging

Identifiers

PMID41859141
PMCPMC12995649

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.