ReviewCureus2025
A Critical Narrative Review of Medical School Curricula: Teaching Methods, Assessment Strategies, and Technological Integration.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Feasibility and implementation of a final year Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in a medical model curriculum.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Healthcare simulation and contextually relevant primary care training curricula in Africa.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical education is a continuously evolving discipline that requires ongoing curriculum reform to align with the changing healthcare landscape. The increasing complexity of patient care, advancements in medical technology, and the need for physicians to possess both clinical acumen and humanistic qualities necessitate a re-evaluation of traditional medical training approaches. This narrative review critically examines the structure of medical school curricula, including teaching methods, assessment strategies, and technological integration. It explores evidence-based strategies and emerging trends to identify critical gaps and provide recommendations and areas for further research. Various teaching methods are compared and contrasted, including integrated and traditional curricula, problem-based and team-based learning, early and late clinical exposure, and interdisciplinary education. Assessment strategies examined include written exams and objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs), along with formative and summative assessments. The integration of technology, particularly virtual reality (VR) and artificial intelligence (AI), is also discussed. For the review, we utilized SciSpace (PubGenius Inc.; https://scispace.com), a search engine that provides access to a vast collection of peer-reviewed research papers from various databases. We assessed for bias and quality, including all papers from this century that contained the relevant keywords and key phrases. A narrative critical review style was chosen for its flexibility to provide insight into the current body of literature on this topic, in contrast to an empirical systematic review that is more comprehensive. Our findings indicate that institutions are transitioning from a traditional to an integrated curriculum. Incorporating both problem-based and team-based learning proves more effective in curriculum design. The costs and benefits of OSCEs should be weighed individually by each school to guide efficient implementation. Furthermore, both formative and summative assessments are vital. AI and VR are essential as medical education evolves and require continuous monitoring. Additionally, early clinical exposure is more beneficial for students, and interdisciplinary education fosters better patient outcomes.
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.