Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38115062›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2023

No knowledge gap in human physiology after remote teaching for second year medical students throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.

Stefan K Schauber, Kåre-Olav Stensløkken

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Stefan K SchauberFaculty of Medicine, Unit for Health Sciences Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. stefanks@uio.no.
Kåre-Olav StensløkkenSection of Physiology, Department of Molecular Medicine, Institute of Basic Medical Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic had a disruptive effect on higher education. A critical question is whether these changes affected students' learning outcomes. Knowledge gaps have consequences for future learning and may-in health professionals' education-also pose a threat to patient safety. Current research has shortcomings and does not allow for clear-cut interpretation. Our context is instruction in human physiology in an undergraduate medical program from high stakes end of term examinations. The sequence of imposed measures to slow the COVID-19 pandemic created a natural experiment, allowing for comparisons in performance during in-person versus remote instruction.In a two-factorial design, mode of instruction (in-person vs. remote) and mode of assessment (in-person vs. remote) were analyzed using both basic (non-parametric statistics, T-tests) and advanced statistical methods (linear mixed-effects model; resampling techniques). Test results from a total of N = 1095 s-year medical students were included in the study.We did not find empirical evidence of knowledge gaps; rather, students received comparable or higher scores during remote teaching. We interpret these findings as empirical evidence that both students and teachers adapted to pandemic disruption in a way that did not lead to knowledge gaps.We conclude that highly motivated students had no reduction in academic achievement. Moreover, we have developed an accessible digital exam system for secure, fair, and effective assessments which is sufficiently defensible for making pass/fail decisions.

Indexed as

Academic SuccessCOVID-19Students, MedicalEducational StatusHumansPandemicsBasic sciencesCovid-19 pandemicKnowledgeMedical educationPhysiologyRemote assessmentTeaching

Identifiers

PMID38115062
PMCPMC10731691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.