Trial reportKorean journal of medical education2026
Effect of structured preceptorship on clinical reasoning of pediatric residents in Indonesia: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Korean journal of 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDiagnostic errors contribute to patient safety risks, often arising from cognitive failures in clinical reasoning. Preceptorship is thought to improve residents' clinical reasoning. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a preceptorship program on clinical reasoning among pediatric residents.
methodsThis randomized controlled trial was conducted from March 2025 to May 2025 at Dr. Soetomo General Academic Hospital, Surabaya, Indonesia. All pediatric residents were randomly allocated into two groups. The intervention group received a scheduled preceptorship program, while the control group continued with standard supervision. After 8 weeks, clinical reasoning skills were assessed using the Script Concordance Test (SCT). Data were analyzed using comparation test. End-of-program questionnaires were also reported.
resultsTotal 41 residents completed the study. Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups (p>0.05). Mean overall SCT scores ranged from 55% to 90% of the maximum possible score. Among 14 topics, hematology & oncology was the only topic that showed a significant difference in SCT scores between the intervention group (median, 14.28; interquartile range [IQR], 12.78-15.08) and the control group (median, 12.75; IQR, 11.49-13.63). Participants reported that preceptorship made learning more structured and interactive but noted barriers including busy preceptor schedules and lack of standardized teaching materials.
conclusionThe preceptorship program resulted in a significant improvement in only one topic, which may reflect suboptimal implementation of the intervention. Despite this, participants reported positive perceptions, indicating good acceptability. More intensive and consistent preceptorship may be required to achieve measurable improvements in clinical reasoning.
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.