ArticleBMC medical education2025
Optimizing pathophysiology instruction in dental school: examination paper analysis and strategic reflections.
Article in BMC medical education, 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.
- Using Score Distribution Patterns to Detect Auscultation Teaching Challenges: An Empirical Study of 284 Medical Undergraduates.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Bridging Basic and Clinical Medicine: A Combi-Method Approach to Pathophysiology Education.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
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
Abstract
backgroundPathophysiology, a bridge between basic and clinical medicine, is particularly crucial for dental students. This article analyzes the final pathophysiology examination paper for the 2021 grade dental medicine students at Xi'an Jiaotong University to understand the students' knowledge mastery, assess teaching effectiveness, and ultimately improve teaching quality.
methodsThe theoretical examination results of 93 dental medicine students from the 2021 grade were analyzed and graded using the Optical Mark Recognition digital grading system to ensure accuracy and efficiency in processing multiple-choice responses. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 26.0 to determine the score distribution, difficulty index, discrimination index, and reliability.
resultsThe examination scores of the 93 dental medicine students showed a skewed distribution, with an average score of 74.32, a median of 76, and a standard deviation of 17.31. The pass rate was 83.87%. The detailed score distribution was as follows: 23.66% of students scored between 90 and 100, 18.28% scored between 80 and 89, 22.58% scored between 70 and 79, 19.35% scored between 60 and 69, and 16.13% scored below 60. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test confirmed a significant deviation from normality (K-S value = 0.1477, P < 0.0001), with a skewness coefficient of -0.75 and a kurtosis coefficient of 0.45. The overall difficulty index of the exam was 0.73, the discrimination index was 0.42, and the reliability was high at 0.86.
conclusionsOur data suggest that the examination demonstrated high reliability and acceptable discrimination but was relatively easy. Future examinations should increase the difficulty level and discrimination appropriately. In teaching, we should continue to enhance teaching quality by focusing on key knowledge points, optimizing the assessment system, exploring innovative teaching modes, and further improving overall teaching quality. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.