ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2022
Basic Medical Sciences Knowledge Retention for Clinical Practice.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of medical practitioners' retention and application of basic sciences to clinical practice.BMC medical education · 2024Pooled it
- Retention of basic sciences knowledge at clinical years: a single institute study from Sudan.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Perceptions, attitudes, and curriculum reflections: exploring healthcare students' engagement with basic medical sciences in Saudi Arabia.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of the Essential Critical Care Concepts in Emergency Medicine: Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and Cardiovascular Devices Module Implementation.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2025Article
- Learning pathways composed of core subjects with features of reducing cognitive load have better learning outcomes.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The basis for studying the clinical sciences is the recall and comprehension of basic medical science facts. Do not, however, directly alter clinical information and as studies revealed that there are basic sciences knowledge retention of medical students gaps in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to assess medical students' basic medical sciences knowledge retention and a relevance of basic sciences knowledge for clinical for practice. Methods: An institutional-based descriptive cross-section epidemiological study design was carried out in the University of Gondar from April to May of 2021. A total of 15 basic and clinical sets of questions were used for data collection. The data were entered and analyzed using SPSS version 20 to analyze data. Results: A total of 191 medical students participated with response rate of 100%. Of these, 48.6% were male. Of all participant students, 69 (36.1%) have had the academic status of excellent with a commutative grade point average greater that 3.6 out of 4.0. Students who correctly responded for all categories of questions for basic and clinical sciences were 8.6±2.7 and 5±2.8 of second years, 5.5±2.3 and 7.1±1.2 of fourth years, 6.5±1.4 and 6.7±1.0 of fifth years, 5.3±0.8 and 8.4±2.5 of sixth years, respectively. As a representative year, the score of second year students' performance for the basic sciences is a statistically significant with overall impact of the basic sciences (6.49±2.5, F=12.51, Conclusion: It is proposed that basic sciences knowledge should be aligned with clinical sciences preparation so that students may grasp disease diagnosis and treatment concepts in an integrated manner.
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.