ArticleBMC medical education2026
Computer-based case simulations enhances clinical reasoning skills of non-dental medical students as measured by mini-CEX.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTraditional didactic lecture-based models in stomatology education, which rely on passive learning through lectures and observation, have limitations in fostering clinical reasoning. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of Computer-based Case Simulations (CCS) in enhancing the clinical reasoning skills of non-dental medical undergraduates, using the Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX) as an outcome measure.
methodsThe study involved 328 non-dentistry medical undergraduates enrolled in four different educational programs: Bilingual, Pediatrics, Clinical Medicine I and Clinical Medicine II. Both the control and intervention group completed a Mini-CEX prior to training to establish a baseline. The control group received traditional didactic training (lectures + passive clinical observation), while the intervention group underwent CCS. Educational effectiveness was evaluated via theoretical test scores and Mini-CEX assessments.
resultsA pre-clerkship survey revealed that non-dentistry undergraduates prioritized learning about various dental diseases and developing clinical diagnostic and therapeutic thinking skills over the technical and procedural skills involved in the delivery of patient care. The intervention group, demonstrated significantly higher theoretical test scores compared with the control group across all classes (Bilingual Class: 98.1 ± 1.22 vs. 97.3 ± 0.97, Cohen's d = 1.129; Pediatric Class: 97.9 ± 0.85 vs. 96.5 ± 1.35, Cohen's d = 1.072; Clinical Medicine Class Ⅰ: 98.0 ± 0.91 vs. 97.0 ± 1.08, Cohen's d = 1.000; Clinical Medicine ClassⅡ: 99.2 ± 1.04 vs. 97.7 ± 1.74, Cohen's d = 1.432; all P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the Mini-CEX score between the groups before the clerkship (P > 0.05). Although both groups showed improvements in Mini-CEX scores post-clerkship, the intervention group exhibited a significantly greater increase (Cohen's d > 0.5, P < 0.01), indicating superior clinical skill development.
conclusionThe results suggest that Computer-based case simulations (CCS) were associated with enhanced clinical knowledge and superior development of clinical reasoning skills in non-dentistry medical undergraduates compared to traditional methods, as measured by theoretical examination and Mini-CEX assessment. Future research should explore the long-term retention of clinical reasoning and the feasibility of scaling CCS in resource-limited settings.
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.