ArticleBMC medical education2026
Evaluation of the effectiveness of outdoor field-based teaching in training allergy specialists to identify allergenic plants.
Article 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of outdoor field-based teaching in improving the ability of clinical medical postgraduates and visiting trainees to identify allergenic plants, and to provide evidence for optimizing standardized training curricula for allergy specialists.
methodsA single-group pre- and post-test design was employed. A two-hour outdoor practical teaching session was conducted at the National Botanical Garden for clinical medical postgraduates and visiting trainees from Peking Union Medical College Hospital. The course was jointly delivered by instructors in botany and allergy, using on-site explanations of representative plant species, analysis of key morphological features, real-time question-and-answer interactions, and guided discussions. Participants completed plant identification tests before and after the course, and a post-course questionnaire was administered to collect student feedback on learning experience and satisfaction.
resultsSixteen students participated in the course. Post-course test scores 90.0 (80.0, 100.0) were significantly higher than pre-course scores 60.0 (42.5, 70.0), with a median improvement of 30 points (P < 0.001). The magnitude of score improvement was negatively correlated with baseline knowledge (ρ = -0.674, P = 0.004). After the course, plant identification accuracy exceeded 80% for most species, with Chinese ash and sycamore achieving 100% recognition. Summer solstice grass, pine, and Chinese ash showed the greatest improvement (all increased by 50%). All participants reported overall satisfaction with the course, and more than 90% considered outdoor practical teaching to be more engaging and effective than traditional slide-based lectures.
conclusionOutdoor field-based teaching significantly enhances trainees’ ability to identify allergenic plants and is associated with high learner satisfaction. Increasing course duration and further integrating theoretical instruction with practical field experience may further improve the quality of allergy specialist training.
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.