ArticleBMC medical education2024
Study preferences and exam outcomes in medical education: insights from renal physiology.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. 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.
- Comparative analysis of university lectures, textbooks, and online video lectures: preferences, engagement, and impact on academic performance among medical students of Nowshera Medical College.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Podcasts in health education-Insights from a scoping review and survey.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEfficient learning strategies and resource utilization are critical in medical education, especially for complex subjects like renal physiology. This is increasingly important given the rise in chronic renal diseases and the decline in nephrology fellowships. However, the correlations between study time, perceived utility of learning resources, and academic performance are not well-explored, which led to this study.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted with second-year medical students at the University of Bergen, Norway, to assess their preferred learning resources and study time dedicated to renal physiology. Responses were correlated with end-of-term exam scores.
resultsThe study revealed no significant correlation between time spent studying and overall academic performance, highlighting the importance of study quality over quantity. Preferences for active learning resources, such as Team-Based Learning, interactive lessons and formative assignments, were positively correlated with better academic performance. A notable correlation was found between students' valuation of teachers' professional competence and their total academic scores. Conversely, perceived difficulty across the curriculum and reliance on self-found online resources in renal physiology correlated negatively with academic performance. 'The Renal Pod', a locally produced renal physiology podcast, was popular across grades. Interestingly, students who listened to all episodes once achieved higher exam scores compared to those who listened to only some episodes, reflecting a strategic approach to podcast use. Textbooks, while less popular, did not correlate with higher exam scores. Despite the specific focus on renal physiology, learning preferences are systematically correlated with broader academic outcomes, reflecting the interconnected nature of medical education.
conclusionThe study suggests that the quality and strategic approaches to learning significantly impact academic performance. Successful learners tend to be proactive, engaged, and strategic, valuing expert instruction and active participation. These findings support the integration of student-activating teaching methods and assignments that reward deep learning.
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.