Claims

First-year medical students scored higher in conventional courses than in the integrated courses (78.84 vs 72.84, p<0.05)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · 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.

q2 i? The 2014 first-year cohort obtained significantly higher mean scores in conventional medical courses than in the integrated courses (p<0.05). → Pan et al. 2017

Evidence

Pan et al. 2017

Sanqiang Pan, Xin Cheng, Yanghai Zhou, Ke Li & Xuesong Yang. (2017). Seeking the Optimal Time for Integrated Curriculum in Jinan University School of Medicine. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n1p25

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Comparison of mean scores of first-year medical students (n=43) from two integrated and eight conventional medical courses (anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, etc.). The article reports "significant difference between the exam results of integrated and conventional medical courses."

"there was significant difference between the exam results of integrated and conventional medical courses (integrated = 72.84 ± 9.85, conventional = 78.84 ± 5.77, p<0.05)"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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