ArticleCureus2026
Effectiveness of a Numerical Problem-Solving Module in Enhancing Renal Physiology Comprehension.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Renal physiology is integral to medical education but poses challenges due to its abstract and quantitative nature. Traditional didactic teaching methods often do not foster a deep understanding of key concepts. With the advent of competency-based medical education in India, there is a need for innovative approaches to enhance conceptual understanding and analytical reasoning. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a numerical problem-solving module in enhancing first-year medical students' understanding of renal physiology. Methods We conducted a quasi-experimental intervention study with pre- and post-test paired assessments among first-professional medical students in the Department of Physiology at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, India. The intervention consisted of a small-group discussion of a 20-question renal physiology numerical problem-solving module that followed traditional lectures. The numerical module covered key aspects of renal function, including volume of distribution, clearance, glomerular filtration rate and renal blood flow calculations, tubular processing, and acid-base balance. We administered pre- and post-tests consisting of 17 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) via Google Forms (Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA). We used MCQ scores to assess quantitative performance. Item analysis was performed for both pre- and post-test MCQs. We collected students' perceptions using a validated questionnaire. Among 113 students, only 92 students attempted both pre- and post-tests, while 100 students anonymously submitted the complete questionnaire. We used a paired t-test to compare related groups. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Results The post-test score (12.5 ± 2.3; 73.8 ± 13.5%) showed a significant improvement (p < 0.001) compared with the pre-test scores (11.3 ± 2.4; 66.6 ± 14.4%). Item analysis revealed that pre-test low achievers demonstrated significantly higher post-test scores (8.1 ± 1.7 versus 11.8 ± 2.6, p < 0.001), whereas high achievers showed no significant change. Students' feedback strongly supported the incorporation of numerical problem-solving modules into the curriculum, highlighting greater engagement, deeper understanding, and enhanced peer collaboration. Conclusion The numerical problem-solving module significantly enhanced students' understanding of renal physiology, particularly benefiting low achievers. This study underscores the potential for numerical problem-solving to become a standard component of medical education, fostering analytical skills and confidence.
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.