ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2025
Microscopy without a microscope? Opportunities and limitations of dental studies in anatomy during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.
Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the microscopy course as part of the dental medical training in Leipzig, Germany, was transformed from a classroom-only course into a purely digital and later hybrid course with reduced attendance time. Aim of this educational research study is the detailed evaluation of digital and hybrid courses regarding students' perception and learning outcome. Based on the findings current teaching should be critically scrutinised, resulting in a modern design of the histology curricula. Methods: This is an educational research study. The students' subjective experiences are measured with the help of an evaluation survey and the learning success was objectively measured using a digital assessment course. Data was collected in two consecutive year groups of dentistry students, each after completion of the second semester. Cohort A consisted of 56 students, cohort B of 54 students. The sampling was purposive and the sample size equals the sample population (closed population of A+B = 110). A statistial analysis of the quantitative results were carried out and quantitative results were analysed using content-structuring qualitative content analysis. Results: Students are predominantly positive about hybrid teaching approaches, although limitations such as perceived deterioration of the quality of teaching and insufficient learning success in cohort A can be identified. Hybrid teaching cohort B showed significantly better learning success than the purely digital cohort A. Discussion: Particularly digital lecture formats and the CUVM have been valued by students. In addition, practical courses with appropriate resources (e.g. CUVM, digital identification course) can benefit from a blended approach. Regardless of the continued importance of practical training in dental studies, digital teaching formats developed as an emergency solution at the beginning of the pandemic should be evaluated in regard to their success and the existing potential should be further expanded in a targeted manner.
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.