ArticleBMC research notes2026
An exploratory within-cohort paired comparison study of learner-centered and traditional teaching in medical endocrinology education.
Article in BMC research notes, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis exploratory within-cohort paired comparison study aimed to compare the outcomes of a learner-centered learning (LCL) approach and Traditional Teaching (TT) in medical endocrinology education, using an unbalanced self-controlled design adapted to real-world teaching contexts.
resultsSixteen undergraduates from the same cohort at Wenzhou Medical University were taught two endocrine topics (hyperuricemia and hyperthyroidism) by two associate chief physicians of equal qualification. Each topic was delivered using either LCL or TT. Although the LCL group achieved higher mean scores on knowledge tests and across all satisfaction survey dimensions, these differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Qualitative analysis of student feedback revealed a strong preference for LCL elements, with students reporting enhanced deep understanding and clinical thinking. The knowledge test exhibited a ceiling effect, and the small sample size limited the analysis of structural validity; content validity was established, and internal consistency estimates were high (Cronbach's α > 0.9).
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.