ArticleGMS journal for medical education2025
The science module in the MHH's model curriculum - development, implementation, results.
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 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.
- Scientific education in German medical schools: nationwide cross-sectional study reveals student needs and gaps.BMC medical education · 2026Article
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
Objective: At the Hannover Medical School (MHH), a compulsory science module was introduced into the medical curriculum for the 2020/2021 academic year. This article presents the didactic premises - with a focus on teaching scientific skills and critical thinking - and describes their implementation in the form of a longitudinal teaching concept with a final research paper. Results on the students' learning gains are reported against this background. Methods: The National Competence-Based Learning Objectives Catalogue for Medicine (NKLM) and the results of curriculum mapping were used to identify learning objectives and teaching formats. Learning gains in the newly designed module were assessed using student competence assessments. The research paper concept and initial results are evaluated on the basis of around 200 papers submitted. Furthermore, student feedback (N=81) was collected and analysed using an online questionnaire that was administered after the submission of the research paper. Results: The science module was implemented as a longitudinal teaching concept. The learning objectives are taught through electronic assessment portfolio tasks (ePF tasks), seminars and a final research paper. Formative feedback is provided to assess the ePF tasks. Around 90% of a cohort successfully completed the tasks and achieved significant learning gains. To date, around 200 students have successfully completed a 10-15 page research paper. They consider the acquisition of scientific writing skills and the ability to conduct structured literature research to be the greatest learning gains. Conclusion: The introduction of additional components of scientific training offers numerous opportunities and challenges. Teaching the relevant skills is resource-intensive, as teaching usually requires smaller supervision ratios. To strengthen the feedback culture in medical education, little-used teaching methods such as assessment portfolios and research papers can be employed.
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.