Trial reportPharmacology research & perspectives2022
Alternative to animal experimentation in pharmacology teaching: Development and validation of an equivalent digital learning tool.
Trial report in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Alternative to animal experimentation in pharmacology teaching: Development and validation of an equivalent digital learning tool.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2022Trial
- Reimagining pharmacology education.Pharmacological reviews · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Regarding animal experiments in pharmacology teaching, ethical considerations led us to examine an alternative approach to the use of living animals. This study aimed to assess whether digital tools could replace live animal experiments in terms of motivation and knowledge acquisition. The study was carried out with students enrolled in the 5th year of the industry/research stream at the Faculty of Pharmacy of the University of Limoges. The participants were randomly assigned to groups of traditional or digital teaching methods, with the common theme of the class being the effect of a diuretic agent (furosemide) in rats. The scenario and learning objectives were identical for the two groups. Before the class and after randomization, the acceptance of the digital educational material was assessed with a scale, which predicts the acceptability of users according to individual dimensions and social representations, followed by the assessment of the motivation by a situational motivation scale (SIMS) for both groups. After the class, the students' motivation was assessed by a questionnaire based on Deci and Ryan's self-determination theory. In the end, the participants were evaluated for homogeneity, based on general knowledge of renal pharmacology, and for knowledge acquisition concerning specific knowledge related to this teaching session. This study revealed a good acceptance of the digital tool and a good motivation toward the digital method among all the students. It found the two teaching methods (digital and traditional) to be equivalent in terms of motivation and knowledge acquisition. In our study, digital pedagogical tools as an alternative to live animals did not affect students' motivation and knowledge acquisition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.