ArticlePloS one2025
An osteoporosis course as a separate component of problem-based learning.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
STUDY GROUPS AND
methodsStudy group I was comprised of 25 fourth-year students who successfully completed the Elective Osteoporosis Course I (focused on pathophysiology, diagnostics, and pharmacological treatment), while control group I was comprised of 25 fifth-year students who successfully completed only all required fourth- and fifth-year courses, but did not participate in the elective Osteoporosis I course. Study group II was comprised of 27 fourth-year students who successfully completed the Elective Osteoporosis Course II (focused on treatment of osteoporotic fractures), while control group II was comprised of 24 sixth-year students who were preparing for final exams in surgical disciplines, but did not participate in the Elective Osteoporosis Course II. The groups were compared using a linear regression model with robust estimation of standard errors using Stata 13.1. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsStudy Group I scored, on average, 6.7 points higher than Control Group I on the multiple-choice test (scale -16 to +21). Study Group II scored, on average, 3.5 points higher than Control Group II on the multiple-choice test (scale -21 to +28). Both differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.64, 95% CI: 5.2-8.1; p = 0.006, R2 = 0.15, 95% CI: 1.1-5.9; respectively).
conclusionResults demonstrated a greater understanding in students who participated in problem-based learning medical studies relative to those who completed only the mandatory curriculum.
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.