--- title: "Standardised Patient Teaching and Medical Students' Clinical Reasoning: Systematic Review Protocol" id: "bmj-open-1-impact-of-the-standardised-patient-teaching-method-on-medical-students-clinical" canonical_url: "https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/bmj-open-1-impact-of-the-standardised-patient-teaching-method-on-medical-students-clinical" content_type: "clinical_feed_article" specialty: "General" source_name: "BMJ Open" source_url: "http://bmjopen.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/16/9/e114495?rss=1" published_at: "2026-09-04T11:29:48.000Z" evidence_level: "Journal Feed" license: "CC-BY-NC-4.0 / Informational Use" --- # Standardised Patient Teaching and Medical Students' Clinical Reasoning: Systematic Review Protocol ## Provenance & Clinical Metadata - **Canonical URL:** https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/bmj-open-1-impact-of-the-standardised-patient-teaching-method-on-medical-students-clinical - **Specialty:** [General](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/general.md) - **Primary Source:** BMJ Open - **Source URL:** [Original Journal Publication](http://bmjopen.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/16/9/e114495?rss=1) - **Published At:** 2026-09-04T11:29:48.000Z - **Evidence Rating:** Journal Feed ## Executive GIST (TL;DR) - Clinical reasoning is a core competency for physicians and a primary target of undergraduate medical education; traditional clinical placements are the usual context for developing this skill but have limitations. - Standardised patient (SP) simulations are increasingly used as an educational innovation, yet their specific effect on medical students’ **clinical reasoning** competence is not well defined in the literature. - The authors propose a systematic review, following PRISMA-P guidance, to synthesise available evidence on the impact of the **standardised patient (SP)** teaching method on clinical reasoning in medical students. - A comprehensive search will cover five electronic databases: **PubMed**, **Embase**, **Web of Science**, **Education Research Complete**, and **the Cochrane Library**. - Screening will proceed in two stages: title/abstract review to identify potentially relevant studies, then full-text assessment of selected articles. - Two independent reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction using a standardised form, and risk of bias assessment to limit reviewer-related bias. - The primary outcome to be extracted and analysed is **clinical reasoning competence**; secondary outcomes include **communication skills** and **student satisfaction**. - Risk of bias for included studies will be assessed using the **Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2**. - Where study characteristics and available data permit, a meta-analysis will be performed; if pooling is not feasible, a narrative synthesis will be presented. - This protocol does not involve human subjects; results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The review is registered in **PROSPERO** (registration number reported). ## Clinical Analysis & Structured Key Points Introduction Clinical reasoning is an essential competency for all physicians, and fostering this skill in medical students is a primary objective of medical education. Currently, clinical reasoning is predominantly cultivated through experiences in clinical settings; however, this approach presents certain limitations. The emergence of innovative medical simulation teaching methods has led to the increasing utilisation of standardised patient (SP) simulations in medical education. However, the specific contribution of the SP teaching method to the development of clinical reasoning skills in medical students remains unclear. Therefore, we propose a systematic review to summarise the impact of the SP teaching method on the clinical reasoning competence of medical students. Methods and analysis This systematic review protocol adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines for reporting results. A comprehensive literature search will be conducted across five major online databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Education Research Complete and the Cochrane Library. The screening process comprises an initial review of titles and abstracts to identify relevant studies efficiently, followed by a full-text assessment of the selected articles. Two reviewers will independently conduct study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Data extraction will be performed using a standardised form. The primary outcome is clinical reasoning competence, and secondary outcomes are communication skills and student satisfaction. The risk of bias in included studies will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2. Depending on the literature search results and the characteristics of the selected studies, a meta-analysis will be conducted where feasible. Otherwise, a narrative synthesis will be performed. Ethics and dissemination This study presents a protocol for a systematic review and does not involve human subjects. The findings will be disseminated through publication as a manuscript submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO registration number CRD420251163882. ## Related Clinical Research - [Fathers' perinatal mental health needs: qualitative insights from North East England and North Cum](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/bmj-open-6-understanding-fathers-perinatal-mental-health-and-well-being-support-needs-a.md) - [Pregnant women's experiences in Maternity Waiting Homes in Ari zone, Ethiopia: a qualitative study](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/bmj-open-8-experiences-of-pregnant-women-staying-in-a-maternity-waiting-home-at-ari-zone.md) - [Post-occupancy evaluation of former residences of celebrities in Yangzhou using online reviews and](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/plos-one-2-post-occupancy-evaluation-of-former-residences-of-celebrities-in-yangzhou-based.md) - [Kurort Health Walking in a Forest: Short-Term Physiological and Psychological Effects](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/plos-one-3-physiological-and-psychological-outcomes-of-a-community-based-kurort-health.md) - [Readers’ reactions: M.D. vs D.O., AI and physician autonomy, surrogacy, postpartum psychiatry, and](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/stat-news-0-opinion-what-stat-readers-think-about-m-d-vs-d-o-ai-in-medicine-surrogacy-and.md) ## Navigation - [← Back to General Feed](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/general.md) - [← All Clinical Specialties](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed.md) ## Medical & Regulatory Disclaimer > [!CAUTION] > MedicHelpline content is structured for research, educational, and professional discovery purposes. It does not constitute individual medical advice, clinical diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. > Always verify dosing, contraindications, and regulatory alerts against official product labeling and primary regulatory sources before clinical decision-making.