ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2024
Evaluating the quality of multiple-choice question pilot database: A global educator-created tool for concept-based pharmacology learning.
Article in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 2024. 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.
- Pooled it
- Prescribing competence: The pros and cons of different methods for assessment.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
- Development and Validation of Pharmacology Concept Inventory for Concept-Based Learning: Leveraging Theory, Expert Insights, and Student Perspectives.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Article
- AI-generated multiple-choice questions in health science education: Stakeholder perspectives and implementation considerations.Current research in physiology · 2025Review
- Evaluating the quality of multiple-choice question pilot database: A global educator-created tool for concept-based pharmacology learning.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Core Concepts of Pharmacology (CCP) initiative is developing educational resources to transform pharmacology education into a concept-based approach. This study evaluated the quality of global educator-created MCQs in generating items for the pharmacology concept inventory (PCI) instrument and developed as a resource for learning pharmacology fundamental concepts. A panel of 22 global pharmacology experts recruited from the CCP initiative research team participated in the MCQ pilot database design and evaluation. The quality analysis framework of the MCQs in the pilot database included four assessment tools: item writing guidelines (IWGs), Bloom's taxonomy, the CCP, and the MCQ design format. A two-phase evaluation process was involved, including inter-rater agreement on item quality, followed by resolving conflicts that occurred in quality assessment. The chi-square (χ
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.