Trial reportBMC medical education2026
A study on the application of the remote multidisciplinary team teaching model in clinical postgraduate education of urology.
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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPostgraduate medical education increasingly requires learners to develop clinical reasoning, manage uncertainty, integrate heterogeneous clinical information and collaborate across disciplines. Multidisciplinary team (MDT) teaching may provide a clinically situated learning environment in which trainees can observe and participate in complex decision-making. However, evidence on the use of remote MDT teaching in urology postgraduate education remains limited.
methodsThis randomized controlled study included 76 professional master's students rotating through a surgical standardized residency training base. Students were assigned to a remote MDT teaching group or a conventional teaching group, with 38 students in each group. The remote MDT intervention was delivered as a structured teaching package that included pre-session case preparation, remote multidisciplinary case discussion, expert-guided case analysis, post-session reflection and iterative feedback. Outcomes included theoretical knowledge, clinical decision-making, practical skills, questionnaire-based evaluation of the teaching model and overall competency.
resultsStudents in the remote MDT group achieved higher scores than those in the conventional teaching group in theoretical knowledge, clinical decision-making, questionnaire-based evaluation and overall competency. No significant between-group difference was observed in practical skills. The pattern of findings suggested that the remote MDT model had a stronger effect on outcomes requiring information integration, clinical reasoning and collaborative decision-making than on procedural performance.
conclusionsRemote MDT teaching may be a useful component of urology postgraduate education, particularly for learning outcomes related to clinical reasoning and knowledge integration. Its value appears to derive not only from remote delivery, but also from the structured organization of preparation, multidisciplinary discussion, reflection and feedback. Procedural skill development remains dependent on supervised hands-on practice. Future multicentre studies are needed to confirm these findings and to examine which components of the intervention contribute most to learning.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.