Clinical ReasoningSIMCORENCT07679672
Simulation-Based Learning on Clinical Reasoning, Knowledge Retention, and Transfer in Undergraduate Medical Education
A study testing Behavioral and Lecture in people with Clinical Reasoning and Medical Education, run by Altinbas University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
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. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Clinical Reasoning, Medical Education, Simulation Training
- What is being tested?
- Behavioral and Lecture
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 250 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 20 May 2025to 1 Jun 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Enrolled as a [final-year medical student / resident] in the relevant discipline (orthopedics or ophthalmology) at the participating institution
- Completed the baseline orientation and agreed to participate
- Available for the full learning session and the post-session assessment
Who cannot join
- Prior completion of the same simulation module or equivalent structured training on the topic
- Did not complete the assigned learning session
- Incomplete post-session assessment data
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Does Video-Based Patient Simulation Improve Clinical Reasoning Skills in Medical Students?
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.
Read more
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.
Read the detailed description
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.
- Conditions
- Clinical Reasoning, Medical Education, Simulation Training
- Being tested
- Behavioral, Lecture
- Keywords
- Clinical reasoning, Simulation-based education, Video-based simulation, Undergraduate medical education, Randomized controlled trial, Knowledge retention, Diagnostic accuracy, Medical students
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
BehavioralOther
Also called Digital video-based clinical-reasoning simulation
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.
LectureBehavioural
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.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Simulation | Experimental | 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. Receives: Other: Behavioral |
| Lecture | Active comparator | 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. Receives: Behavioral: Lecture |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
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.
Measured: Immediately after the learning session (same day)
Secondary outcomes (3)
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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: Immediately after the learning session (same day)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted1 Jul 2026
- Study start20 May 2025
- Primary completion1 Jun 2026
- Study completion1 Jun 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Clinical ReasoningStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 250 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Altinbas University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Sibel Zorlu Ozturk, Altinbas University
- Investigators
- Omer Tontus, MD, Study chair
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07679672
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Altinbas
- Acronym
- SIMCORE
- Status last verified
- Jun 2026
- First submitted
- 23 Jun 2026
- Last updated
- 1 Jul 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Jul 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Does Video-Based Patient Simulation Improve Clinical Reasoning Skills in Medical Students?
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07679672
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SIMCORE / Altinbas
- Conditions
- Clinical Reasoning, Medical Education, Simulation Training
- Keywords
- Clinical reasoning, Simulation-based education, Video-based simulation, Undergraduate medical education, Randomized controlled trial, Knowledge retention, Diagnostic accuracy, Medical students
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 250 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Altinbas UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 20 May 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Jun 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Jun 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 1 Jul 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
Detailed description
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.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Simulation | Experimental | Other: BehavioralInteractive, 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. |
| Lecture | Active comparator | Behavioral: LectureInstructor-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. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Enrolled as a [final-year medical student / resident] in the relevant discipline (orthopedics or ophthalmology) at the participating institution
- Completed the baseline orientation and agreed to participate
- Available for the full learning session and the post-session assessment
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Prior completion of the same simulation module or equivalent structured training on the topic
- Did not complete the assigned learning session
- Incomplete post-session assessment data
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| BehavioralAlso: Digital video-based clinical-reasoning simulationInteractive, 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 | Simulation |
| LectureInstructor-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. | Behavioural | Lecture |
Primary outcome
Clinical-reasoning performance score
Time frame: Immediately after the learning session (same day)
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.
3 secondary outcomes
Diagnostic accuracy
Time frame: Immediately after the learning session (same day)
Participant confidence
Time frame: Immediately after the learning session (same day)
Participant satisfaction
Time frame: Immediately after the learning session (same day)
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 Jul 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Clinical Reasoning
Not yet recruiting
MAGICS - Multi-Agent Generative AI in Clinical Simulation for Clinical Deterioration Training
Clinical Reasoning in Nursing Education, Virtual Simulation
Recruiting
Effects of Agent-assisted, LLM-assisted and Traditional Workflows on Diagnosis and Management Planning at Admission
Clinical Decision Support Systems, Diagnostic Reasoning
Not yet recruiting
Effectiveness of Serious Games on Nursing Students' Clinical Reasoning
Clinical Reasoning
Enrolling by invitation
Teaching Doctors in Training to Reason With Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence (AI), Clinical Reasoning
Not yet recruiting
Comparative Case Learning in Undergraduate Nursing Students
Clinical Reasoning in Nursing Education
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Omer Tontus, MD study chair
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Behavioral and Lecture in people with Clinical Reasoning and Medical Education, run by Altinbas University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Jul 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Clinical-reasoning performance score (time frame: Immediately after the learning session (same day)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Jul 2026.