ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the types of interventions, the application of outcome measures, and the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in medical education, and to provide evidence-based support for improving study design and optimizing evaluation frameworks in this field. MethodsPubMed, Embase, CBM, CNKI, and WanFang Data databases were systematically searched from inception to April 2025. A total of 340 medical education RCTs were included through stepwise random sampling and screening. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize publication characteristics, participant types, intervention classifications, and distributions of outcome measures. Regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with reporting quality. ResultsRCTs of medical education were included, with the majority originating from China (n=284). Participants were predominantly undergraduate clinical medical students, and sample sizes were mainly small to moderate (20-60 participants). Cognitive-oriented interventions accounted for the largest proportion (76.03%), and control group designs were highly homogeneous. A total of 843 outcome measures were identified, primarily focusing on short-term outcomes such as theoretical knowledge and clinical skills, whereas long-term outcomes (e.g., behavioral changes and patient-related outcomes) were markedly underrepresented. Overall reporting quality was suboptimal, with inadequate implementation of blinding and allocation concealment. Multivariable regression analysis indicated that explicit specification of primary outcomes, study region, and intervention type were significant determinants of reporting quality. ConclusionSignificant gaps remain in intervention design, outcome selection, and methodological reporting in medical education RCTs, particularly in the development of long-term outcome measures and adherence to key methodological standards. This study systematically synthesizes existing evidence and identifies key factors influencing reporting quality, providing empirical support for improving RCT design, standardizing outcome measure systems, and enhancing methodological rigor in medical education research. The findings also offer important implications for educational practice and policy-making.
Objective To investigate short-term effectiveness and clinical application advantages of orthopedic robot-assisted resection for osteoid osteoma compared with traditional open surgery. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data of 48 osteoid osteoma patients who met the selection criteria between July 2022 and April 2023. Among them, 23 patients underwent orthopedic robot-assisted resection (robot-assisted surgery group), and 25 patients received traditional open surgery (traditional surgery group). There was no significant difference (P>0.05) in gender, age, disease duration, lesion location and size, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and musculoskeletal tumor society (MSTS) score between the two groups. The surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative lesion localization time, initial localization success rate, infection, and recurrence were recorded and compared. VAS scores before surgery and at 24 hours, 1, 3, 6, and 9 months after surgery and MSTS score before surgery and at 3 months after surgery were assessed. Results All patients completed the surgery successfully, with no significant difference in surgical time between the two groups (P>0.05). Compared to the traditional surgery group, the robot-assisted surgery group had less intraoperative blood loss, shorter lesion localization time, and shorter hospitalization time, with significant differences (P<0.05). The initial localization success rate was higher in the robot-assisted surgery group than in the traditional surgery group, but the difference between the two groups was not significant (P>0.05). All patients in both groups were followed up, with the follow-up time of 3-12 months in the robot-assisted surgery group (median, 6 months) and 3-14 months in the traditional surgery group (median, 6 months). The postoperative MSTS scores of both groups improved significantly when compared to those before surgery (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in the changes in MSTS scores between the two groups (P>0.05). The postoperative VAS scores of both groups showed a gradually decreasing trend over time (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups after surgery (P>0.05). During follow-up, except for 1 case of postoperative infection in the traditional surgery group, there was no infections or recurrences in other cases. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative infection between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Orthopedic robot-assisted osteoid osteoma resection achieves similar short-term effectiveness when compared to traditional open surgery, with shorter lesion localization time.