Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Effectiveness of a case-based learning combined with flipped classroom approach in undergraduate pulmonary imaging education: a prospective randomized controlled study.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary imaging plays a critical role in clinical diagnosis, and developing diagnostic reasoning skills is a key objective of undergraduate medical imaging education. Traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) may be insufficient to actively engage students or to cultivate higher-order diagnostic abilities. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a case-based learning combined with flipped classroom (CBL-FC) approach in teaching pulmonary imaging diagnosis to undergraduate medical students.
methodsA prospective, quasi-randomized controlled study was conducted involving 26 third-year undergraduate students majoring in Medical Imaging. Due to the method of allocation based on the parity of student ID numbers, students were assigned to either a CBL-FC group (n = 13) or an LBL group (n = 13). The teaching content focused on imaging diagnosis of common pulmonary diseases. Learning outcomes were assessed using pre- and post-intervention tests evaluating theoretical knowledge, application of imaging principles, and diagnostic reasoning based on clinical cases. Students’ learning experiences and satisfaction were assessed using a self-administered questionnaire based on a 5-point Likert scale.
resultsThere was no significant difference in baseline test scores between the two groups (p = 0.150). After the intervention, both groups demonstrated improved performance; however, post-intervention test scores were significantly higher in the CBL-FC group compared with the LBL group (p<0.001). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in theoretical knowledge (p = 0.628). In contrast, students in the CBL-FC group showed significantly better performance in the application of imaging principles and diagnostic reasoning based on clinical cases. However, the small sample size may limit the statistical power and generalizability of these findings. Future studies with larger sample sizes would help to confirm these results and assess their broader applicability. In addition, students in the CBL-FC group reported high levels of learning interest, positive learning experiences, and overall satisfaction with the teaching approach.
conclusionsThe CBL-FC approach appears to be a feasible and potentially effective teaching strategy for undergraduate pulmonary imaging education. By promoting active participation, peer interaction, and diagnostic reasoning, this approach may support the development of clinically relevant imaging interpretation skills.
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.