ArticleBMC medical education2025
Retention of physiology knowledge among medical students in basic science: a cross-sectional study.
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.
- The effect of using a chatbot integrated with the ARCS motivation model in physiology education: a mixed-methods study.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Article
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
backgroundMedical educationists are concerned that the retention of basic science concepts weakens beyond the early years of medical programs, with clinicians rarely using basic sciences in clinical practice. This study was conducted to evaluate the knowledge retention of physiology courses in medical students at Kerman University of Medical Sciences.
methodsThis is a cross-sectional study at Kerman University of Medical Sciences. A retention test was conducted in physiology courses using multiple-choice questions. This study included 104 medical students who had completed their basic science courses. The students were in physiopathology, internship, and clerkship were selected. The mean and standard deviation were applied to analyze the data, and a two-sample t-test, one-way ANOVA, was performed with a significance level of P-value < 0.05.
resultsThe results of this study in retention test scores showed that lost knowledge was revealed throughout the years. Additionally, the results showed that in three subjects-gastrointestinal, nervous system, and respiratory-the scores of students in Y1 were higher than those of students in other years. In the course of endocrinology, the highest mean score belonged to the students who entered medical school in Y4, and the difference in mean scores among the different groups was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The mean scores in the urinary system course achieved by the medical students are presented, with students who entered medical school in Y3 having the highest mean scores compared to those in other years.
conclusionsThe key takeaway is that knowledge retention is not passive; it requires active reinforcement through educational strategies. By prioritizing active learning, integrating clinical relevance, and leveraging strategies like retrieval practice and spaced learning, medical educators can enhance long-term retention and better prepare students for clinical practice.
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.