ReviewPharmacological reviews2026
Reimagining pharmacology education.
Review in Pharmacological reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacokinetics Education: Addressing Core Learning Challenges Through Innovations in Teaching.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Review
- Guiding student use of generative AI in undergraduate pharmacology: a narrative review and proposed source-checking process framework.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Pharmacology educators as leaders of programmatic assessment for safe prescribing in competency-based medical education.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We are arguably experiencing the greatest disruption to higher education in modern history. High-quality education research has demonstrated that active learning and other innovations are significantly more effective than traditional methods. The recent pandemic forced educators to adapt in previously unimaginable ways. Generative artificial intelligence now presents great challenges and opportunities for our approaches to teaching, support of learning and assessment, such as streamlining personalized feedback while raising concerns about academic integrity. This article provides a research informed, expert commentary to support new pharmacology educators in navigating this complex environment. The article is neither a systematic review by design and methodology, nor is it offering comprehensive coverage of the pertinent literature (an insurmountable task, given the breadth of the topic). We highlight how educators in basic and clinical pharmacology are transforming their teaching and curricula to enhance student success in current and future settings. Global initiatives, such as those sponsored by the International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology, including the Pharmacology Education Project and Core Concepts-based curricula, are offering opportunities to enhance pharmacology education by standardizing key concepts, providing open-access learning resources, and fostering international collaboration. These efforts are intended to support alignment of curricula, improve student engagement through interactive materials, facilitating a global exchange of best practices, and supporting educators in adopting innovative teaching methodologies. These initiatives require contributions from pharmacology experts across multiple countries, languages, and cultures. Consequently, this article serves as a call to action to advance innovation and inclusivity in pharmacology education. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Recent disruptions in higher education have forced educators to adapt in ways that would have previously been unthinkable. The article provides an evidence-based, expert commentary for new pharmacology educators that will assist them to thrive in this complex environment.
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.