ArticleCureus2026
A Pilot Study on Whether Concept Mapping as a Teaching Tool Improves Student Engagement in Phase I Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) Biochemistry Lecture Sessions.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Engaging Phase I Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) students in biochemistry lectures is often challenging due to the abstract nature of metabolic concepts. Concept mapping, an active learning strategy that visualizes hierarchical relationships, has been proposed to enhance meaningful learning and critical thinking. This pilot study evaluated the effectiveness of concept mapping in improving student engagement and academic performance compared to traditional didactic instruction. Methods An exploratory mixed‑methods pilot study was conducted among Phase I MBBS students (N=98) randomly allocated into two equal groups: intervention group (n=49), taught via concept mapping, and control group (n=49), taught via traditional lectures. Pre‑ and post‑intervention knowledge scores, internal assessment marks, and student perception surveys were analyzed. Statistical methods included independent samples t-tests, paired t-tests, 2×2 repeated‑measures analysis of variance (RM‑ANOVA), and thematic analysis of qualitative feedback. A significance threshold of p<0.05 was applied. Results At baseline, pre‑test knowledge scores were comparable between groups (24.22±6.78 vs. 23.85±6.42; p=0.780), confirming homogeneity. Post‑intervention, the concept mapping group achieved significantly higher mean scores (65.24±10.72 vs. 42.10±8.15; p<0.001) and a markedly greater absolute knowledge gain (Δ=+41.02±8.20 vs. +18.25±5.10; p<0.001). RM‑ANOVA revealed a highly significant group×time interaction effect (F(1,96)=272.58; p<0.001; partial η
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.