ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Transforming surgical ward rounds: constructivist pedagogy, structured models, and intelligent technologies.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgical ward rounds are central to clinical training but often fail to engage learners as active participants. Traditional apprenticeship models leave teaching unstructured and variable, while clinical pressures compress time available for education. This review examines three interconnected developments that offer a way forward: constructivist learning theories that explain why active engagement matters, structured teaching models that translate theory into practice, and intelligent technologies that expand what is possible. SNAPPS (Summarize, Narrow, Analyze, Probe, Plan, Select), the One-Minute Preceptor (OMP), and the BID (Briefing, Intraoperative, Debriefing) framework each operationalize constructivist principles in different clinical contexts. Preliminary evidence from recent trials suggests that SNAPPS may improve clinical reasoning and case presentation quality, while OMP appears to achieve higher learner satisfaction in time-pressed settings. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools, in exploratory studies, can simulate consultant-level questioning before rounds and support consolidation afterwards. Immersive virtual reality (IVR) offers scalable skills training with potential long-term knowledge retention. Yet these technologies introduce concerns about accuracy, over-reliance, and algorithmic bias that governance frameworks are only beginning to address. Drawing on the evidence, an integrated framework is proposed that positions theory as the foundation, structured models as the methodology, and technology as an empowering tool. The field now needs multi-center studies with standardized outcomes, longer follow-up, and systematic investigation of how AI and VR combine with established teaching frameworks.
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.