ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2025
Application of Clinical Pathway and Case-Based Learning in Residency Training of Pediatric Cardiology.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Residency training provides systematic, competency-based education for medical graduates. Although specialised knowledge and clinical skills are crucial in pediatric cardiology, training in China is often limited to 2-3 months with lecture-heavy approaches. We explored integrating clinical pathway(CP) and case-based learning (CBL) models to enhance training efficiency. Methods: The study involved 47 second-year pediatric trainees in Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (2021-2024), randomly divided into a traditional teaching (TT) group and a CP-CBL group. Both groups underwent a 3-month training period, with no significant baseline differences (age: 21.6 ± 1.2 vs 22.1 ± 0.8 years; eight male trainees/group). The TT group received conventional lectures and ward-based learning. In the CP-CBL group, standardized instruction for common diseases was delivered through CP, whereas atypical/complex cases were taught with CBL. Both groups covered identical syllabus and duration. Outcomes were assessed through a theoretical test, case analysis, and an anonymous trainee questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale. Group means were compared using Welch's t-tests (α = 0.05) in R software (significance level: p < 0.05). Results: Among 47 pediatric trainees, 24 (51.1%) were assigned to the CP-CBL group. No significant differences in age, experience, or prior CP-CBL exposure were observed between groups. All trainees completed the rotation exam. The CP-CBL group outperformed the TT group in comprehensive assessments (case analysis + theory exams), with 37.5% vs 4.3% of trainees scoring >90 points respectively. Trainees in the CP-CBL group reported higher satisfaction with learning interest (p < 0.01) and perceived skill improvement (p < 0.01), but no significant differences in course organisation (p = 0.49) or instructor performance (p = 0.79). Conclusion: In pediatric cardiology training, CP-CBL outperformed TT in both knowledge acquisition and learner engagement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.