ArticleMedical science educator2026
Fixed Versus Rotating Practice Monitors in Small-Group Anatomy Teaching: A Prospective Study in Medicine and Optometry.
Article in Medical science educator, 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
Introduction: Small-group practice sessions facilitated by peer or faculty monitors are widely used in health professions education to support the integration of theoretical knowledge. However, evidence regarding the optimal organizational model for assigning practice monitors is limited. This study compared fixed versus rotating practice monitor systems in terms of knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction. Methods: A prospective experimental study was conducted involving 198 medical students and 58 optometry students. Medical students were allocated to either a fixed or rotating practice monitor system and completed three formative Kahoot! based quizzes at 6 weeks, 4 weeks, and 2 days prior to the final examination. Optometry students experienced both systems, using fixed monitors in the first half of the course and a rotating system in the second half. Student satisfaction was assessed using an online survey in both degree programs. Results: Medical students assigned to fixed practice monitors achieved significantly higher scores in the first two formative quizzes; however, no significant differences were observed in the final quiz or final examination results. Similarly, no significant differences in examination performance were found between practice monitor systems among optometry students. Student satisfaction ratings were comparable across both organizational models. Conclusions: Fixed practice monitor systems may support more consistent early learning progress, but overall knowledge acquisition and academic performance did not differ between fixed and rotating models. These findings suggest that organizational flexibility in assigning practice monitors can be implemented without compromising learning outcomes, offering practical guidance for curriculum planning in health professions education. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-026-02793-6.
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.