ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Comparative Impact of ChatGPT and Conventional Search Tools on Clinical Reasoning Performance: A Randomized Crossover Study in Preclinical Medical Students.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of generative artificial intelligence on clinical skills and knowledge acquisition in medical undergraduates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Internship Learning Experiences, Challenges, and Resource Preferences Among Junior Doctors in Two Malaysian Tertiary Hospitals: A Pilot Study on the Preliminary Validation of a Multifaceted Questionnaire.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Effects of Artificial Intelligence-Supported Education on Critical Thinking, Problem-Solving, Clinical Reasoning, and Decision-Making in Health Science Education: A Systematic Review of Interventional Studies.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Review
- Comparative Impact of ChatGPT and Conventional Search Tools on Clinical Reasoning Performance: A Randomized Crossover Study in Preclinical Medical Students [Letter].Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
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
Purpose: To compare the impact of ChatGPT and conventional search strategies on clinical reasoning performance among preclinical medical students. Patients and Methods: A randomized crossover study was conducted at a single institution during a musculoskeletal system course involving 46 second-year medical students. Participants completed a baseline pre-test followed by two structured intervention phases in which they analyzed standardized clinical cases using either ChatGPT or conventional search tools (Google or PubMed). A 60-minute washout period was implemented before crossover to the alternate modality. Post-tests were administered after each phase. The primary outcome was clinical reasoning performance measured using an eight-point rubric-based scale. Secondary outcomes included self-perceived learning, confidence, and qualitative feedback. Paired t-tests were used for within-subject comparisons, and effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d. Results: The mean pre-test score was 3.96 (standard deviation 1.65), increasing to 4.96 (standard deviation 1.71) after the first intervention and to 5.70 (standard deviation 1.50) after crossover. Improvements were statistically significant across all paired comparisons (p < 0.05), with a large cumulative effect size (Cohen's d = 0.97). Performance improvements were observed across both learning modalities, without evidence that gains were attributable to a single approach. Students reported that ChatGPT facilitated rapid organization of differential diagnoses and management plans, whereas conventional search encouraged more deliberate synthesis and comparison of information sources. Conclusion: Both artificial intelligence-assisted and conventional search strategies improved short-term clinical reasoning performance within a structured active-learning environment. These findings support a balanced integration of large language models alongside traditional search methods in undergraduate medical education. Clinical Trial Registration Number: TCTR20260218005.
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.