ArticleCureus2025
Developing Concept Maps as an Aid for Enhancing Analytical Thinking in Undergraduate Medical Students.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
Introduction Concept maps (CMs) are a sequential and graphical method of representing the learned material or topic by the learner. They are represented by the main headings contained in the boxes connected with arrows, and also contain linkers that keep joining the different connected topics. It helps in linking concepts and visualizing their relations. This might help in discovering new problem-solving and analytical thinking. The present study was conducted to sensitize students to using CMs as a learning tool and to assess their effect on learning. Method A cross-sectional prospective study was conducted on 150 first-year Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) students divided into two groups, I and II. Group I was taught only by didactic lecture, while group II was taught by both didactic lecture and concept map. Pre- and posttests were conducted for all groups with a prevalidated questionnaire. Feedback was obtained from both groups using a three-point Likert scale. Paired t-tests and Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank tests were applied for statistical analysis according to the distribution of data. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Result Both groups had similar pretest scores, but the posttest scores showed a significant increase in scores of students in both groups I and II. We observed a significant improvement in knowledge (gain of marks) in group II, which used CMs, in comparison to group I, which was taught using only traditional didactic lectures. This improvement was more marked regarding high cognitive-type MCQs. We observed a significant increase in the performance of group II students (median = 7 (5.0-8.0)) in comparison to group I students (median = 3 (2.0-5.0)) (p-value < 0.0001). After analyzing the feedback questionnaire, we observed that 64.2% (96) and 55.2% (83) of the students agreed that the concept mapping exercise helped them to understand and correlate the topic more coherently, respectively. Conclusion Concept mapping is a better learning tool in comparison to the classical didactic lecture and demonstration method. It facilitates higher cognitive learning. It can be included in the medical undergraduate curriculum to facilitate meaningful learning.
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.