Trial reportJMIR medical education2025
Evaluation of the Inverted Classroom Approach in a Case-Study Course on Antithrombotic Drug Use in a PharmD Curriculum: French Monocentric Randomized Study.
Trial report in JMIR medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Appropriate antithrombotic drug use is crucial knowledge for pharmacy students. Objective: We sought to compare the inverted classroom (IC) approach to a traditional question-and-answer educational approach with the aim of enhancing pharmacy students' engagement with a case-study course on antithrombotic drug use. Methods: Third-year PharmD (Doctor of Pharmacy) students from Paris Cité University were randomly assigned to control (n=171) and IC (n=175) groups. The latter were instructed to read and prepare the preprovided course material 1 week before the in-class session to assume the instructor role on the target day, whereas students of the control group attended a traditional case-study course carried out by the same instructor. All students completed pre- and posttest multiple-choice questions surveys assessing their knowledge levels as well as stress, empathy, and satisfaction questionnaires. Results: A significantly higher participation rate was observed in the control group (93/171, 54%) compared to the IC group (65/175, 37%; P=.002). Women (110/213, 52%) participated more than men (48/133, 36%; P=.002) whatever the group was. Students' knowledge scores from both groups had similar results with no difference neither in the prescore (1.17, SD 0.66 and 1.24, SD 0.72 of 5, respectively) nor in the short-term knowledge retention (2.45, SD 0.61 and 2.35, SD 0.73, respectively). The IC approach did not increase student stress or enhance their empathy for the instructor. It increased the preclass workload (P=.02) and was not well received among students. Conclusions: This study showed that the traditional educational approach remains an efficient method for case-study courses in the early stages (ie, third-year) of the 6-year PharmD curriculum, yet dynamic methods improving the active role of students in the learning process are still needed.
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.