ArticleBMJ open2026
Impact of the standardised patient teaching method on medical students' clinical reasoning competence: a systematic review protocol.
Article 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical reasoning is an essential competency for all physicians, and fostering this skill in medical students is a primary objective of medical education. Currently, clinical reasoning is predominantly cultivated through experiences in clinical settings; however, this approach presents certain limitations. The emergence of innovative medical simulation teaching methods has led to the increasing utilisation of standardised patient (SP) simulations in medical education. However, the specific contribution of the SP teaching method to the development of clinical reasoning skills in medical students remains unclear. Therefore, we propose a systematic review to summarise the impact of the SP teaching method on the clinical reasoning competence of medical students. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review protocol adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines for reporting results. A comprehensive literature search will be conducted across five major online databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Education Research Complete and the Cochrane Library. The screening process comprises an initial review of titles and abstracts to identify relevant studies efficiently, followed by a full-text assessment of the selected articles. Two reviewers will independently conduct study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Data extraction will be performed using a standardised form. The primary outcome is clinical reasoning competence, and secondary outcomes are communication skills and student satisfaction. The risk of bias in included studies will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2. Depending on the literature search results and the characteristics of the selected studies, a meta-analysis will be conducted where feasible. Otherwise, a narrative synthesis will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study presents a protocol for a systematic review and does not involve human subjects. The findings will be disseminated through publication as a manuscript submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251163882.
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.