ArticleGMS journal for medical education2025
Mapping the undergraduate medical curriculum of the Charité Berlin against the National Competence-Based Catalogue of Learning Objectives (NKLM 2.0).
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.
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.
- DEGRO consensus framework for undergraduate radiation therapy teaching in Germany: a white paper with integrated guidance on artificial intelligence in medical education.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Article
- Systemic Barriers to Curriculum Adaptation for Rapidly Changing Knowledge in Medical Education: Qualitative Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- National Competence Based Catalogue of Learning Objectives for Undergraduate Medical Education (NKLM) - process description over the last 15 years.GMS journal for medical education · 2026Article
- Teaching research systematically: From educational policy vision to competence-oriented practice.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: The National Competence-Based Catalogue of Learning Objectives (NKLM) aims to set standards for undergraduate medical education programs in Germany. The NKLM 2.0 is currently under revision, and medical faculties have been invited to evaluate this version. This study maps the learning objectives of the Modular Curriculum of Medicine (MCM) of the Charité Berlin to the NKLM 2.0 items using approaches based to those of a previous mapping of NKLM 1.0 to allow comparison. Methods: A two-step process was used to determine coverage. First, the MCM learning objectives were mapped to the NKLM 2.0 items using the LOOOP curriculum management platform. Next, the degree of coverage of the NKLM 2.0 by the MCM was calculated via three quantitative approaches and one qualitative approach (content comparison). Finally, the results of NKLM 2.0 coverage were compared with the results of the previous NKLM 1.0 mapping. Results: The mapping process identified 11,879 matches between 4,396 MCM learning objectives and 2,813 NKLM 2.0 items. The degree of NKLM 2.0 coverage, based on a content comparison approach increased to 52% compared with 41% for the NKLM 1.0. While some NKLM 2.0 chapters showed considerable increases (VII +25%, VIII +20%), others showed relevant decreases (V -8%, VI -8%). Discussion: The coverage of the NKLM 2.0 by MCM learning objectives has improved compared with the NKLM 1.0. However, the low level of coverage by the MCM of only 52% indicates that the content of future revisions of the NKLM needs to be reduced considerably; otherwise, the content cannot feasibly be taught and learned within the regulatory framework for undergraduate medical education in Germany.
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.