ArticleBMC medical education2026
Simulation-based and clinical training in undergraduate nuclear medicine education: evaluation of competency outcomes using a structured OSCE framework.
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSimulation-based training (SBT) has emerged as a structured educational strategy to support safe transition into clinical imaging practice. In nuclear medicine technology (NMT), where high-risk procedures require precision and adherence to radiation protection standards, variability in clinical-based training (CBT) exposure may affect skill acquisition. Evidence evaluating structured simulation integration within undergraduate nuclear medicine education remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate performance outcomes associated with SBT and CBT using a structured OSCE framework to assess competency acquisition, procedural performance, and radiation safety preparedness among undergraduate nuclear medicine students.
methodsA comparative educational evaluation was conducted involving two undergraduate NMT cohorts from separate institutions in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (SBT, n = 30; CBT, n = 30). Students underwent a structured four-station objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) in a controlled hot laboratory environment assessing theoretical knowledge, radiopharmaceutical dose preparation, dose calibrator operation, and radiation safety management. Normality of the data was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, and homogeneity of variances was evaluated using Levene's test. Independent-samples t-tests with Welch's correction were used to compare group means between SBT and CBT groups. For variables where assumptions were violated, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was applied. Bonferroni correction was applied to account for multiple comparisons (p < 0.0125).
resultsStudents trained using simulation demonstrated higher mean scores across all OSCE stations compared with clinically trained peers. Statistically significant differences were observed in stations 2, 3, and 4 (all p < 0.001), favoring the SBT group and remaining significant after Bonferroni correction. Higher mean performance was also observed in theoretical knowledge; however, this difference was not statistically significant.
conclusionsSimulation-based training was associated with higher mean performance across assessed competencies, with statistically significant differences observed in practical and safety-related OSCE stations (stations 2-4). While no significant difference was observed in theoretical knowledge, these findings suggest that structured simulation may enhance procedural readiness and reinforce radiation safety behaviors in undergraduate nuclear medicine education when integrated alongside clinical 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.