An interventional study of Behavioral and Lecture in Clinical Reasoning, Medical Education and Simulation Training, sponsored by Altinbas University. Completed at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-07-01.
Sponsored by Altinbas University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
This randomized controlled trial evaluates whether a digital, video-based clinical-reasoning simulation improves clinical-reasoning performance compared with conventional lecture-based teaching across multiple clinical disciplines, including orthopedics and ophthalmology.
Within each discipline, participants are randomly allocated 1:1 to an intervention group or a control group. The intervention group learns the assigned topic through an interactive, web-based simulation built on real patient video cases with structured clinical-reasoning steps. The control group receives the same learning objectives and content through a standard didactic lecture, over a comparable duration.
After the learning session, all participants complete the same set of standardized clinical scenarios, scored with a predefined rubric. The primary outcome is the post-intervention clinical-reasoning score. Secondary outcomes include diagnostic accuracy, confidence, and satisfaction.
The trial uses a shared protocol across discipline-specific cohorts to allow consistent, pre-specified comparison of simulation-based versus lecture-based instruction.
Background. Clinical reasoning is a core competency across medical disciplines, yet traditional lectures offer limited interactive practice. A digital simulation using authentic patient cases may strengthen reasoning, but comparative evidence is limited.
Objective. To compare a digital, video-based clinical-reasoning simulation with conventional lecture-based teaching on clinical-reasoning performance, using a single shared design applied across discipline-specific cohorts (e.g., orthopedics, ophthalmology, paediatrics).
Design. Single-center, parallel-group, two-arm randomized controlled trial with 1:1 allocation, replicated as pre-specified cohorts by clinical discipline under one common protocol.
Participants. Eligible learners (medical students / residents) within each discipline-specific cohort at primarily Altinbas University.
Randomization. Computer-generated 1:1 randomization performed separately within each cohort; outcome assessors blinded to allocation.
Interventions. Intervention - interactive, web-based clinical-reasoning simulation using real patient video cases with structured reasoning steps. Control - didactic lecture delivering identical learning objectives and content over a comparable duration.
Outcomes. Primary - post-intervention clinical-reasoning score on standardized scenarios rated with a predefined rubric. Secondary - diagnostic accuracy, participant confidence, satisfaction.
Cohorts \& analysis. Each discipline-specific cohort is analyzed separately with an independent-samples t-test; inter-rater reliability assessed where applicable. Total target enrollment (n=250) across all cohorts.
Altinbas University is the lead sponsor of 12 studies on the registry; 1 is open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Interactive, web-based clinical-reasoning simulation built on real patient video cases. Learners actively work through structured decision points (history, examination, differential diagnosis, investigation, management) and receive immediate feedback.
Other: Behavioral
Instructor-led didactic lecture delivering identical learning objectives through expert explanation and slides. Learners receive content passively, without interactive decision steps or video-based case progression.
Behavioral: Lecture
Interactive, web-based clinical-reasoning simulation built on real patient video cases. Learners actively work through structured decision points (history, examination, differential diagnosis, investigation, management) and receive immediate feedback.
Also known as: Digital video-based clinical-reasoning simulation
Instructor-led didactic lecture delivering identical learning objectives through expert explanation and slides. Learners receive content passively, without interactive decision steps or video-based case progression.
Clinical-reasoning performance score
Performance on a set of standardized clinical scenarios completed after the learning session, rated with a predefined scoring rubric. Higher scores indicate better clinical-reasoning performance. Assessed separately within each discipline-specific cohort. Scored using the five-domain Clinical Reasoning Score System; total range 0-100, with higher scores indicating better clinical-reasoning performance.
Time frame: Immediately after the learning session (same day)
Diagnostic accuracy
Proportion of standardized scenarios in which the participant reached the correct diagnosis, scored against a predefined answer key. Reported as the percentage of scenarios with a correct diagnosis (0-100%); higher values indicate better performance.
Time frame: Immediately after the learning session (same day)
Participant confidence
Self-reported confidence in clinical decision-making, measured on a structured rating scale after the session. Measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater confidence.
Time frame: Immediately after the learning session (same day)
Participant satisfaction
Self-reported satisfaction with the learning method, measured on a structured rating scale after the session. Measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater satisfaction.
Time frame: Immediately after the learning session (same day)
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
This study is completed, as verified in Jun 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Altinbas University