ReviewPharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2026
International Benchmarking of Pharmacology Curricula and Prescribing Related Learning Outcomes, Implications for Australian Health Professional Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPharmacology plays a central role in linking biomedical science concepts with their application in clinical practice across medical and healthcare education. Globally, the pharmacological curriculum has evolved, just like other disciplines, through the integration of case-based, problem-based, and hybrid teaching models that led to firm clinical reasoning and long-term learning. Thus, this study aims to evaluate and compare the learning outcomes of pharmacology curricula across the globe by adopting a systematic review and meta-analysis research approach.
methodsThis comprehensive review was conducted with transparency and integrity in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251207753). Five electronic databases, including MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2000 to October 2025. The Cochrane Library tool was used for the risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials, while the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist was used for mixed-design, quasi-experimental, and cross-sectional cohorts. Review Manager 5.4 was used for statistical analysis.
resultsOut of 3300 identified studies, 11 met the inclusion criteria, spanning 11 countries (published between 2007 and 2025). Integrated and case-based curricula significantly improved pharmacology knowledge compared to traditional lecture-based methods (SMD = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.07-0.64;
conclusionGlobally, active and integrated pharmacology curricula foster greater cognitive understanding and learner satisfaction than conventional models. However, significant variability persists in resource-limited settings, leading to unequal competency in prescribing and therapeutic reasoning. Australian pharmacology programmes align broadly with international standards but require greater standardisation in assessment and experiential 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.