ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Enhancing pharmacology learning through simulation-based training versus traditional teaching: a quasi-experimental study among undergraduate medical students.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traditional pharmacology tutorials may limit clinical reasoning development in managing life-threatening conditions. Although high-fidelity simulation offers realistic learning, little is known about its comparative effectiveness in teaching pharmacology to undergraduate students. Methodology: A quasi-experimental study compared traditional tutorials with simulation-based practical among second-year MBBS students. Identical lecture on Organo-Phosphorus Poisoning (OPP) preceded group-specific interventions. Knowledge assessed via MCQs at three time points: pre-test (post-lecture), immediate post-test, delayed post-test (4 weeks). A standardized 5-point Likert-scale questionnaire was used to assess student perceptions. Knowledge scores reported as median (IQR); perceptions (5-point Likert) as n (%). Wilcoxon rank-sum tests compared pre-test, immediate post-test, and 4-week post-test scores between simulation and tutorial groups to assess baseline comparability and intervention effects. Result: All 126 second-year MBBS students completed baseline assessment post-didactic lecture, with comparable pre-test scores between simulation and tutorial groups [median (IQR): 7 (5-9) vs. 6 (5-7)]. Post-intervention, both groups improved, but simulation group students achieved significantly higher immediate post-test scores and 4-weeks post-test score [r = 0.45]. Three months' post-intervention, blinded evaluation of a 5-mark exam question on the management of OPP showed higher pass percentage in the simulation group when compared with the traditional teaching group (73.5% vs. 68%; p < 0.05). Student feedback corroborated these results, with majority of simulation students agreeing that their sessions enhanced clinical understanding, engagement, and exam preparedness. Conclusion: High-fidelity simulation performs noticeably better than traditional tutorials in knowledge acquisition, retention, and student perceptions of clinical relevance for critical cases management like OPP. Simulation fosters improved clinical reasoning, physiological understanding, and examination preparation among medical undergraduates. Pharmacology curricula should try to include simulation-based practicals to bridge theory-practice gaps in clinical pharmacology 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.