ArticleGMS journal for medical education2025
Classroom teaching versus online teaching in physiology practical course - does this lead to different examination results?
Article in GMS journal for medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How does culinary medicine training impact the diet-related knowledge, skills and attitudes of undergraduate medical students in Germany?-A systematic review.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of Academic Performance and Preference for Teaching Modality Among Health Professions Students Taught Physiology Modules in the Rwandan Public University.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- How effective is online teaching of physiology modules? perception of Rwandan health sciences students.Current research in physiology · 2026Article
- Alternative evaluation methods in medical education.GMS journal for medical 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
Background: Due to contact restrictions during the Corona pandemic, teaching at the Center for Physiology and Pathophysiology at the University of Cologne was temporarily offered online for some students and face-to-face for others. As there are different views on the effectiveness of online teaching, this study compared students' examination results between the teaching formats (face-to-face vs. online). Methods: In winter 2021/22, a total of 198 students in their fourth preclinical semester took part in the physiology course. The students were randomly assigned to 15 practical courses, so that the practical course was completed either traditionally in presence (face-to-face; FtF Results: In comparison with the O Conclusion: Our study shows that students who have attended traditional face-to-face classes tend to perform better in the written exam. The reasons may be multifactorial. However, online teaching also offers some advantages, such as flexibility in terms of location and time management for students. The choice between online and face-to-face teaching should be based on the specific requirements of the course. Ideally, a hybrid solution that combines the advantages of both formats would be an effective teaching format. It is therefore essential to continuously review educational practices.
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.