ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2025
Evaluating the effectiveness of radiological anatomy course in a module of undergraduate medical curriculum.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a Radiological Anatomy Module in the undergraduate MBBS curriculum. Methodology: An experimental pre- and post-test study was conducted over a ten weeks period, from September 23, 2024 to December 2, 2024, at the University College of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Lahore. A total of 144 second year MBBS students were randomly assigned to either a control group or an experimental group. Both groups received equal teaching hours and were taught by the same trained facilitators using identical instructional methods-lectures, small group discussions, applied clinical scenarios and dissection. In addition, the experimental group was taught how to identify anatomical structures on radiological images, which were integrated into all teaching sessions. Assessments comprised 30 MCQs per module, validated by subject experts and subjected to item analysis. Student feedback was gathered through a structured questionnaire. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 25, with paired and independent t-tests applied (p < 0.05). Results: The experimental group demonstrated significantly higher post-test scores compared to the control group in both the Abdomen (20.5 ± 1.12 vs. 14.05 ± 1.53; p < 0.001) and Pelvis modules (23.7 ± 2.39 vs. 13.8 ± 1.42; p < 0.001), as determined by independent-sample t-tests. Item analysis confirmed that MCQs were of appropriate difficulty and discrimination, with acceptable reliability (Cronbach's alpha: 0.61 for Abdomen, 0.59 for Pelvis). Feedback responses also indicated greater engagement, motivation and overall satisfaction among the experimental group (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Teaching abdominal and pelvic anatomy through the lens of radiology significantly improves understanding, reinforces clinical relevance and enhances student engagement.
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.