ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Academic Performance and Student-Reported Learning Experiences of International Medical Students in an Integrated Biomedical Course: A Mixed-Methods Observational Study of "Molecules, Cells and Tissues".
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Integrated preclinical courses commonly combine Team-Based Learning, TBL and Case-Based Learning, CBL with the aim of supporting active participation and clinical contextualization. Evidence from multilingual international medical programs remains limited. This study described academic performance patterns and student-reported learning experiences in the integrated course "Molecules, Cells and Tissues, MCT" and compared historical academic records labeled offline or online. Methods: We conducted a single-institution mixed-methods observational evaluation using three analytically separate samples: 194 academic records (105 labeled offline and 89 labeled online), 82 post-course questionnaire responses, and 10 semi-structured interviews. Academic outcomes were compared using Welch's independent-samples Results: In the academic-record sample, examination scores were higher in records labeled online than offline (68.39 ± 21.13 vs 60.25 ± 23.65; mean difference, 8.14 points; 95% CI, 1.80 to 14.48; p = 0.012; Cohen's d = 0.36), whereas TBL/CBL scores did not differ significantly (90.05 ± 5.55 vs 90.72 ± 5.76; mean difference, -0.67; 95% CI, -2.28 to 0.93; p = 0.411; d = -0.12). Mandarin-proficiency categories were imbalanced across delivery labels ( Conclusion: Examination scores differed modestly between historical records labeled online and offline, but the delivery-label association was attenuated and not statistically significant after adjustment for Mandarin-proficiency category. Because delivery label coincided with cohort period and assessment equivalence was not established, the observed score difference cannot be attributed to instructional modality. Separately, survey respondents and interview participants generally reported favorable experiences with TBL and CBL. These findings are hypothesis-generating and warrant prospective evaluation with linked data and standardized assessments.
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.