ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Digital case-library and dual-mentor teaching for medical laboratory science internships in China: a historical comparison educational evaluation.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Medical laboratory science internships often rely on fragmented rotation-based placements, limiting opportunities to connect laboratory results with clinical decision-making, quality-control reasoning and communication with clinicians. We evaluated the feasibility, acceptability and associated outcomes of a digital case-library-based dual-mentor teaching model. Methods: This single-centre retrospective historical controlled educational evaluation, not a randomised trial, included 36 interns from 2022 to 2023 who received routine rotation-based teaching and 30 interns from 2024 to 2025 who completed 10 structured digital case-library sessions. Clinical mentors introduced disease context and decision points; laboratory mentors guided test selection, result interpretation, quality-control reasoning and communication. Outcomes included archived historical records and questionnaires, intervention pre-post self-rated core competency, process indicators, blinded double-marked unseen-case objective assessment, mentor ratings and open-ended feedback. Results: Sixty-six interns were analysed. Sex distribution and grade point average strata did not differ significantly between groups. In the historical group, only 8.3% reported that routine rotations helped them link laboratory findings with clinical care, and no students reported enough case discussion or direct clinician communication. In the intervention group, 29 students had valid paired self-rating data; self-rated core-competency total increased from 14.62 ±3.18 to 38.55 ±4.19/55, with a mean gain of 23.93 points (95% CI 22.38-25.48; Wilcoxon W = 435.0, Conclusion: The model was feasible and well accepted. Findings suggest an associative trend in perceived competency development with preliminary convergent evidence, but causal interpretation is limited by retrospective approval, non-random historical comparison, absent historical baseline measurements and reliance on self-rated outcomes.
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.