ArticleAnnals of medicine2026
Beyond the feedback: a student-directed case-based collaborative learning Review committee.
Article in Annals of 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe curriculum of the Doctor of Medicine program at The University of Kansas School of Medicine includes a substantial portion of content delivered via small-group, case-based collaborative learning (CBCL) activities. As critical stakeholders in continuous quality improvement in their education, medical students are poised to make contributions to curriculum enhancement, though they are often underutilized resources.
methodsWithout a faculty-led curriculum revision committee, we piloted a student-led Case-Based Collaborative Learning Review Committee (SCRC) to systematically incorporate student feedback into curriculum revision efforts by reviewing three CBCL activities. The SCRC provided structured anonymous edits and feedback to faculty authors. Qualitative (thematic) data analysis used mixed methods to assess the intervention's impact and develop guidance for future iterations.
resultsSessions were well-received by participating students and receiving faculty based on satisfaction surveys. Thematic analysis of student-generated suggested edits revealed five primary categories of revisions: simple edits, pre-work recommendations, relevancy of social constructs, clarification, and 'need more'.
conclusionOverall, the intervention demonstrated that student-led review was feasible and yielded valuable multi-level feedback on small-group learning activities, such as CBCL. Further research could help determine if similar work could be feasible and effective for lectures and flipped classroom material and whether such continuous quality improvement should be required in our medical education curriculum processes.
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.