ReviewCureus2026
Evaluating Study Techniques for Australian Medical Students During Clinical Placement: A Scoping Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transitioning from pre-clinical to clinical phases of medical education represents a unique challenge as students learn most content through self-directed learning (SDL), rather than the more prescriptive pre-clinical curriculum. There is a range of SDL study techniques employed by medical students on placement. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of digital resources, prompting a need to reassess the study techniques that best support clinical-year medical students. However, there is a lack of research on which study techniques Australian clinical-year medical students find most effective. The objective of this study is to evaluate the evidence on student-perceived utility of common study techniques for SDL whilst on clinical placement in Australia. A qualitative scoping review of literature on PubMed and Medline Ovid was performed in 2024. Study inclusion criteria for articles were published articles, English language, publication within 20 years, and focus on clinical-year medical students. Exclusion criteria were review articles, investigations focusing on a specific educational intervention, and studies including only pre-clinical students. Studies were qualitatively appraised and synthesised by tabulation in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, US). Risk of bias analysis was not performed. Nine studies from Australia, the USA, the UK, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, and Malaysia were analysed. This included seven cross-sectional, one mixed-methods, and one qualitative analysis. Sample size ranged from 12 to 350 students. Only two studies were conducted after the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, the results of the included studies demonstrate a consistent trend towards third-party online tools, including question banks, mobile applications, and revision courses for SDL. The strength of evidence on students' perceived efficacy of study techniques in the post-pandemic era presented is limited due to the small number of included studies and the lack of formal study appraisal. There is also poor generalisability of pre-pandemic and international studies to the contemporary Australian context. As there is a lack of a standardised tool to evaluate study technique utility, comparison between studies is difficult. Ongoing research is required to develop evidence-based guidelines that can assist students in commencing SDL whilst on clinical placement.
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.