ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Online adaptive E-tutorials for development of critical appraisal skills.
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
Critical appraisal of research literature is an important skill for graduates yet science graduate employers report dissatisfaction with skill levels. As scaffolding can assist in critical appraisal development, we aimed to develop and evaluate 2 adaptive e-tutorials for critical appraisal development of neuropharmacology research articles as part of the scaffolding process. We developed adaptive e-tutorials allowing personalised feedback and remediation. Results of an end-of-tutorial survey, and comparisons of institutional Unit of Study Survey ratings and exam results in the 2 years before, and during, the intervention were analysed. Over 4 years, 150 students participated. In the cohorts that did not complete the e-tutorial, there were significant differences in exam marks between students of different academic backgrounds (non-science < science < medicine backgrounds; p < 0.05), while no significant differences between groups were seen in students that completed the e-tutorial, and these marks were statistically equivalent. Students ranked their perceived benefit from the videos, increase in critical appraisal ability, and value of the e-tutorial with average rankings between 4.4-4.6 on a Likert scale (5 = strongly agree). Similarly, students who completed the e-tutorial showed a significant increase in rating of their critical thinking skills in the Unit of Study Survey (p < 0.05). Completion of the e-tutorial was associated with increased equitable development of critical appraisal. Students from non-science backgrounds showed the biggest increase in actual appraisal performance, suggesting that while the e-tutorial was associated with increased confidence for all students, the other features of the course may have developed appraisal levels to a stage sufficient for successful exam completion.
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.