Claims

Curriculum alignment shows the weakest, non-significant relationship with ophthalmology education outcomes (β = 0.21, p = 0.08)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Curriculum alignment was the weakest predictor and did not reach significance (β = 0.21, p = 0.08, CI: -0.02–0.45). → Luksanaporn K 2025

Evidence

Luksanaporn K 2025

Luksanaporn K, Naruporn K, Sasikarnt L. (2025). Global disparities in ophthalmology education and alignment with international council of ophthalmology guidelines among medical students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07012-1

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Null result from the same multiple regression analysis reported in Table 2; the article states "Curriculum Alignment showed the weakest relationship (β = 0.21, p = 0.08, CI: -0.02–0.45)". No effect size is printed, so impact is null.

"Non-Significant Predictor: Curriculum Alignment showed the weakest relationship (β = 0.21, p = 0.08, CI: -0.02–0.45) as shown in Table 2."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.