ArticleBMC medical education2026
Standardized patient training for neurological examination: providing precise, technique-oriented feedback.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStandardized patients (SPs) are widely used in clinical skills education, primarily to support communication training and clinical performance assessment. However, structured training that enables SPs to recognize technical errors and provide precise, technique-oriented feedback during neurological examinations remains limited.
methodsTwelve experienced SPs completed a 16-hour structured training program, starting with knowledge comprehension and terminology standardization, followed by video‑based study of normal examination signs, and culminating in practical sessions focused on error recognition and technique‑oriented feedback. Formative assessments evaluated SPs’ ability to detect predefined examination errors (pass threshold ≥ 85%). Certified SPs then participated in a neurological examination module for undergraduate medical students, providing real-time feedback under faculty supervision. Anonymous questionnaires were administered to both SPs and students to assess perceptions of the training and teaching process.
resultsOne SP withdrew due to personal reasons. Ten of eleven SPs who completed the training met the predefined error detection benchmark. SPs reported high satisfaction with the training and expressed confidence in providing technique-focused feedback. Most students perceived SP feedback as helpful for the study of neurological examinations.
conclusionsThis pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of training SPs to provide precise, technique-oriented feedback in neurological examination teaching. Both SPs and students reported high acceptability of this instructional approach. Further studies using objective performance measures and comparison groups are needed to evaluate its educational effectiveness.
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.