ArticlePloS one2025
Basic medical sciences and understanding medicine: Insights from medical students.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Facilitators' perspectives on a pre-matriculation program in basic biomedical sciences for medical students: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Research progress on the application of virtual simulation in medical education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
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
introductionBasic medical sciences form the cornerstone of any medical knowledge and are essential for understanding various diseases. This study aims to shed light on students' viewpoints toward those sciences while delving into their motivations and hindrances and investigating individual subjects.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was carried out at Damascus University in Syria, targeting final-year medical students. Data collection occurred on a designated clerkship day, during which students were invited to complete an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire evaluated students' overall perception and academic interest in studying basic medical sciences in pre-clinical years and their willingness to pursue these sciences as a prospective career.
resultsThe study surveyed 350 medical students, with 40% rating their interest as good/very good. The extensive content was perceived as a major hindrance by 76.9%. Anatomy was perceived as the easiest subject while pharmacology and biochemistry were considered the hardest. The majority acknowledged the value of basic sciences for further medical education (75.1%) and good physician (77.4%), but only 20.9% indicated their relevance for practical training. Furthermore, 68.6% of students were not interested in pursuing these sciences as a career, primarily due to their preference for clinical fields (55.8%) and concerns about low-income potential (41.3%).
conclusionThis study highlighted students' positive views on Basic Medical Sciences, emphasizing their essential role in understanding disease pathophysiology for medical education and practice. Nonetheless, it pointed out a lack of practical training. The findings underscore the importance of decreasing content intensity and enhancing retention through practical approaches aligned with clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.