Effects of SNAPPS in clinical reasoning teaching: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Javier A. Flores-Cohaila*, Sonia F. Vizcarra-Jiménez, Milagros F. Bermúdez-Peláez, Fritz Fidel Vascones-Román, Marco Rivarola-Hidalgo, Alvaro Taype-Rondan

*Autor correspondiente de este trabajo

Producción científica: Contribución a una revistaArtículorevisión exhaustiva

1 Cita (Scopus)


Introduction: Clinical reasoning is crucial in medical practice, yet its teaching faces challenges due to varied clinical experiences, limited time, and absence from competency frameworks. Despite efforts, effective teaching methodologies remain elusive. Strategies like the One Minute Preceptor (OMP) and SNAPPS are proposed as solutions, particularly in workplace settings. SNAPPS, introduced in 2003, offers a structured approach but lacks comprehensive evidence of its effectiveness. Methodological shortcomings hinder discerning its specific effects. Therefore, a systematic review is proposed to evaluate SNAPPS' impact on clinical reasoning teaching. Content: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SNAPPS against other methods. Data selection and extraction were performed in duplicate. Bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated using Cochrane RoB-2 and GRADE approach. Summary: We identified five RCTs performed on medical students and residents. Two compared SNAPPS with an active control such as One Minute Preceptor or training with feedback. None reported the effects of SNAPPS in workplace settings (Kirkpatrick Level 3) or patients (Kirkpatrick Level 4). Low to moderate certainty of evidence suggests that SNAPPS increases the total presentation length by increasing discussion length. Low to moderate certainty of evidence may increase the number of differential diagnoses and the expression of uncertainties. Low certainty of evidence suggests that SNAPPS may increase the odds of trainees initiating a management plan and seeking clarification. Outlook: Evidence from this systematic review suggests that SNAPPS has some advantages in terms of clinical reasoning, self-directed learning outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, it appears more beneficial when used by residents than medical students. However, future research should explore outcomes outside SNAPPS-related outcomes, such as workplace or patient-related outcomes.

Idioma originalInglés
EstadoAceptada/en prensa - 2024


Profundice en los temas de investigación de 'Effects of SNAPPS in clinical reasoning teaching: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials'. En conjunto forman una huella única.

Citar esto