Trial reportBMJ open2026
Guided group reflection versus SNAPPS in enhancing clinical reasoning in final-year MBBS students at a public-sector teaching hospital in Pakistan: a quasi-experimental study.
Trial report in BMJ open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectives(1) To compare the effectiveness of guided group reflection (GGR) versus SNAPPS (Summarise history and physical examination, Narrow differentials, Analyse the differentials, Probe the preceptor, Plan of patient management, Self-directed learning), as a teaching intervention in improving clinical reasoning (CR) skills of final-year MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery) students. (2) To determine which teaching intervention is more effective in improving specific components of CR (data acquisition, problem presentation, hypothesis generation, illness script comparison and diagnosis) among final-year MBBS students.
designQuasi-experimental study involving two parallel intervention groups with pretest and post-test research design.
settingThe study was conducted from March to June 2025 at the medical department of Holy Family Hospital, affiliated with Rawalpindi Medical University.
participantsA total of 128 final-year Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery students participated over three consecutive internal medicine clinical rotations, each rotation lasting four weeks and involving approximately 45 students.
interventionAfter the informed consent, the participants were randomly allocated into two groups using a lottery method: one receiving GGR intervention and the other receiving SNAPPS intervention. Four clinical cases: chronic dyspnoea, anaemia, chronic liver disease and chronic diarrhoea were addressed during the teaching sessions in both groups. To maintain ethical fairness, students were offered crossover exposure to the alternate teaching method after a 4-week gap. OUTCOMES: A pretest comprised of 15 extended matching questions (EMQs) was used to assess baseline CR skills of the students. Post-tests using blueprint-aligned EMQs were administered after each session, with cumulative scoring at the end of each rotation. The primary outcome was overall improvement in CR, whereas the secondary outcome was improvement in performance of specific CR components.
resultsBoth groups showed significant improvement in overall CR scores (p<0.001). The GGR group achieved higher postintervention scores compared with SNAPPS (32.25±6.2 vs 28.89±9.0; p=0.016), with a moderate effect size favouring GGR (Cohen's d=0.43). Domain-level analysis showed greater gains with GGR in data acquisition, problem presentation and hypothesis generation, while no significant differences were observed for illness script comparison or final diagnosis.
conclusionBoth GGR and SNAPPS teaching methods effectively enhance CR skills among undergraduate medical students. However, GGR demonstrated greater effectiveness in CR domains requiring deeper analytical thinking and collaborative reflection, especially when managing complex cases. Incorporating GGR within undergraduate clinical clerkships may strengthen diagnostic reasoning, particularly in settings with limited faculty-student teaching opportunities.
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.