Trial reportBMC medical education2025
Application and effectiveness of blended learning in biochemistry laboratory courses: a multi-class controlled study.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 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
Abstract
backgroundBiochemistry is a core medical course, but students often find it abstract and difficult to link with laboratory practice. Traditional laboratory teaching emphasizes procedures over understanding. Blended learning, combining online preparation with face-to-face practice, has been widely applied in medical education, yet its use in laboratory courses is underexplored.
methodsA total of 300 s-year clinical medicine undergraduates were divided into ten parallel classes (30 students each) and randomized into blended (n = 150) and traditional teaching (control) groups (n = 150). The blended model included pre-lab micro-lectures and quizzes, in-lab three-station rotations (skills, data interpretation, clinical case tasks), and post-lab reflections. Outcomes included laboratory skills, data interpretation, report quality, and questionnaires on engagement, self-regulated learning (SRL), and satisfaction.
resultsThe blended group scored higher in laboratory skills (34.2 ± 3.5 vs. 29.7 ± 4.2, p < 0.001), data interpretation (78.3%±9.2 vs. 65.5%±10.4, p < 0.001), and report quality (82.1 ± 6.8 vs. 74.4 ± 7.2, p < 0.01). They also reported greater engagement (3.98 ± 0.54 vs. 3.45 ± 0.50), SRL (4.02 ± 0.47 vs. 3.50 ± 0.52), and satisfaction (4.21 ± 0.44 vs. 3.62 ± 0.46) (all p < 0.001). Qualitative data indicated that micro-lectures improved readiness, rotations promoted deeper understanding, and clinical cases enhanced motivation.
conclusionsBlended learning effectively improved both skills and attitudes in a biochemistry laboratory course, offering a replicable model to strengthen theory-practice integration in medical education.
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.