Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38406405›Full record

ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2017

Student-focused virtual histology education: Do new scenarios and digital technology matter?

Szabolcs Felszeghy, Sanna Pasonen-Seppänen, Ali Koskela, Anitta Mahonen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors.

Szabolcs FelszeghyInstitute of Dentistry and Institute of Biomedicine.
Sanna Pasonen-SeppänenInstitute of Biomedicine.
Ali KoskelaInstitute of Medicine.
Anitta MahonenInstitute of Biomedicine.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Innovative changes have become a critical part of teaching when resources are limited. In this study, we examined whether the student-oriented teaching method, when powered by virtual microscopy, improves histology learning compared to traditional microscope-based studies. Anonymous and voluntary post-course surveys were administered to students and essays were processed for content analysis. Google Analytics was used to obtain accurate Internet usage monitoring for WEBMICROSCOPE®. Using SPSS statistics, the examination scores for 2016 were compared to those of previous year, when the course was taught with a traditional-microscope-based model. The results demonstrated that the new teaching scenario was an effective tool, based on the mean examination scores in 2016 compared to the identical groups in 2015. The survey analysis showed that the students benefited more from using WEBMICROSCOPE® and that they frequently gained access to the Web server when they were not in class. The new scenario helped clarify the concept of histology for most of the students and was generally appreciated during teamwork-based histology classes. Students perceived that the use of the digital technology significantly influenced their confidence in learning the fundamentals of histology. In addition, changing to the new teaching scenario powered by WEBMICROSCOPE® improved the students' motivation to participate in discussions and better understand the concept of Histology between the 2015 and 2016 academic years. Finally, these changes all had a positive impact on the students' attention and satisfaction.

Indexed as

Student focused educationWebhistology

Identifiers

PMID38406405
PMCPMC10885289

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.