Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Integrating multidisciplinary team teaching with case-based learning in urology internship education.
Trial report 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the feasibility and initial efficacy of a multidisciplinary team (MDT)-enhanced case-based learning (CBL) approach within urology clinical internship training.
methodsA pilot, cluster-randomized controlled study was conducted at Peking University Third Hospital from January 2022 to September 2023. Eighty-four medical interns in clinical medicine were allocated by pre-formed training groups: 32 to the experimental (MDT-CBL: multidisciplinary team-enhanced case-based learning) group and 52 to the control (traditional teaching) group. The MDT-CBL model integrated urologists, radiologists, and ultrasonographers in teaching structured around real clinical cases. Outcomes included a 20-item written test on urological knowledge and a questionnaire assessing teaching method preference before and after the intervention.
resultsInterns in the MDT-CBL group achieved a higher mean score on the knowledge test (6.2 ± 2.5) compared to the control group (5.8 ± 3.4), though this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.52). Subjectively, the intervention was highly accepted: 65.6% (21/32) of interns in the experimental group preferred the MDT-CBL model post-intervention, with 17 interns switching their preference from the traditional method. This indicates a strong positive shift in learner engagement.
conclusionThe integration of an MDT framework with CBL in urology internship training presents a well-accepted and engaging educational model. While this pilot study did not show a statistically significant advantage over traditional teaching in a written test of foundational knowledge, it was associated with significantly higher learner satisfaction and preference. These findings suggest the model’s primary value may lie in enriching the learning experience and fostering early interdisciplinary collaboration.
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.