ArticleBMC research notes2026
A comparative study examining the perspectives of both students and clinical teachers during practical teaching sessions in otorhinolaryngology.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMedical education aims to prepare future physicians for high-quality patient care. This prospective study examines the perceptions of medical students and clinical teachers with regard to teaching in otorhinolaryngology (ENT) clinical rotations. The objective is to identify discrepancies between the perceptions of students and clinical teachers and their potential impact on overall satisfaction with the learning and teaching process.
methodsDuring a two-week ENT rotation, medical students were obliged to attend seven different seminars. At the end of each seminar, both the students and their teachers were asked to evaluate the seminar using a standardized questionnaire. A total of 1139 questionnaires (n = 1089 students and n = 50 teachers) were collected. Data analysis included a descriptive evaluation and a comparison between the two groups using the Mann-Whitney U test and Cliff’s delta.
resultsThe evaluation revealed a positive perception of teaching as measured by high overall scores, with students averaging 13.2 (± 1.7) and teachers 13.4 (± 1.1) out of a maximum grade of 15. Our analysis revealed no statistically significant disparities in the majority of the question items relating to perceptions between students and clinical teachers. Statistically, highly significant differences with relevant effect sizes were only applicable for the question items: Preparation, Participation by Schedule and Understandable Explanations. DISCUSSION: Our analysis suggests that there is a high level of agreement between students and teachers in terms of perception and satisfaction. The discrepancies in the areas of Preparation, Participation by Schedule, and Understandable Explanations relate to the nature of student-teacher interactions. This indicates that even when overall perceptions are positive, the interactions between students and clinical teachers may still be viewed differently, highlighting an opportunity for improvement.
conclusionOur study shows that medical students and clinical teachers largely share similar perceptions of teaching and learning in practical ENT seminars. Differences were limited to Preparation, Participation by Schedule, and Understandable Explanations. Addressing these discrepancies through improved communication may help optimize the learning environment.
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.