ArticleBMC medical education2026
M
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Correction: MBMC medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrection: M2026
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical students often enter oral exams with insufficient preparation, especially in articulating knowledge under stress. To improve communication and structured answering, we developed a peer-teaching-based exam training simulating oral exams.
methodsA total of approximately 190 third-semester medical students participated in the study. In groups of five, they alternated between the roles of teacher or learner. They simulated two oral exams under tutor (trained medical students of higher semesters) supervision with a time interval of three months. Each session included extensive structured feedback. This study was designed as a large-scale, curriculum-integrated, quasi-experimental study of a peer-led oral exam training intervention. The Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Duisburg-Essen had approved the study. Participation was voluntary and based on informed consent.
resultsPT-BET was associated with increased students' confidence in their own competences during exams and reduced perceived exam stress. After participation students reported higher self-assessment scores, with more students rating themselves higher and fewer reporting poor performance. Stress levels decreased in the second round, with more students experiencing no or only mild stress. Most students appreciated the peer-group format being effective and high numbers planned to include it in their prospective preparation for oral exams. The tutors also noted an improvement after the second round, particularly in terms of the quality of the students' presentations: the depth of information and the structure of the answers had improved considerably. Students' later exam outcomes showed a favorable trend in internal follow-up exams and the oral-practical part of the first section of the German National Medical Licensing Examination (M1).
conclusionsPeer-based simulation of oral exams may support communication skills and exam awareness while being associated with reduced stress. It offers a valuable complement to the traditional medical curriculum and is easily adaptable to other disciplines.
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.