Learning ProblemNCT07302633
Virtual Microscopy Versus Optical Microscopy
A study testing Optical Microscopy and Virtual Microscopy in people with Learning Problem, run by Muhammad Aamir Latif at 1 site in Pakistan.
Trial summary
The literature reveals ongoing debate regarding the relative effectiveness of Virtual Microscopy (VM) versus Optical Microscopy (OM) in achieving specific learning outcomes (SLOs). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 20 to 24 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Learning Problem
- What is being tested?
- Optical Microscopy and Virtual Microscopy
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 350 participants
- Where
- 1 sitePakistan
- Study dates
- 1 Aug 2024to 30 Oct 2024
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 20 to 24 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Students of either gender
- Aged 20-24 years
- Studying in fourth-year MBBS
- Willing to participate
Who cannot join
- Students, absent during the interventions or assessments
- Declined or withdrew consent at any stage
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Pakistan1 site
Quaid-E-Azam Medical College
Bahawalpur, Punjab Province, 63100
About this study
Official title: Virtual Microscopy Versus Optical Microscopy: Comparison of Two Teaching Methodologies for Achieving Specific Learning Outcomes in Medical Students.
The literature reveals ongoing debate regarding the relative effectiveness of Virtual Microscopy (VM) versus Optical Microscopy (OM) in achieving specific learning outcomes (SLOs). There remains a paucity of comprehensive, comparative research evaluating these methodologies against standardized learning outcomes in the medical undergraduate population. This instigated a comparison of VM and OM as teaching methodologies for pathology in medical education, specifically focusing on their effectiveness in achieving predetermined learning outcomes.
Read the detailed description
It is now essential to thoroughly evaluate the pedagogical effects of these changing modalities due to the growing trend towards digital learning environments, which has been brought to light by recent global challenges to traditional classroom teaching. By methodically contrasting virtual and optical microscopy for teaching pathology to undergraduate medical students, this work can close this gap. It is anticipated that understanding the superior modality-more especially, how well it achieves predefined learning outcomes-will improve the optimization of pathology instruction in modern medical education and guide evidence-based curriculum selections.
- Conditions
- Learning Problem
- Being tested
- Optical Microscopy, Virtual Microscopy
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Optical MicroscopyOther
Students were exposed to optical microscopy (OM); OM is the conventional method of using physical microscopes to examine microscope slides.
Virtual MicroscopyOther
Students were exposed to virtual microscopy (VM); VM is a digital technology that allows students to view and analyze microscope slides through digital platforms.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Group I | Experimental | Students were exposed to optical microscopy (OM); OM is the conventional method of using physical microscopes to examine microscope slides. Receives: Other: Optical Microscopy |
| Group II | Experimental | Students were exposed to virtual microscopy (VM); VM is a digital technology that allows students to view and analyze microscope slides through digital platforms. Receives: Other: Virtual Microscopy |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Perceptions and satisfaction
A five-point Likert scale assessed perceptions and satisfaction with the respective teaching methodology. The likert scale responses were graded as 1 for strongly disagree, 2 for disagree, 3 as neutral, 4 agree, and 5 strongly agree.
Measured: 3 hours
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted24 Dec 2025
- Study start1 Aug 2024
- Primary completion30 Oct 2024
- Study completion30 Oct 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Learning ProblemStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 350 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Muhammad Aamir Latif
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Muhammad Aamir Latif, RESnTEC, Institute of Research
- Investigators
- Sadaf Shafique, FCPS, Principal investigator, Quaid-E-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur, Pakistan
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07302633
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- DR-SADAF-QAMC
- Status last verified
- Dec 2025
- First submitted
- 11 Dec 2025
- Last updated
- 24 Dec 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Data can be shared on a reasonable request.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 24 Dec 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Virtual Microscopy Versus Optical Microscopy: Comparison of Two Teaching Methodologies for Achieving Specific Learning Outcomes in Medical Students.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07302633
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- DR-SADAF-QAMC
- Conditions
- Learning Problem
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 350 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Muhammad Aamir LatifUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Aug 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Oct 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Oct 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 24 Dec 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The literature reveals ongoing debate regarding the relative effectiveness of Virtual Microscopy (VM) versus Optical Microscopy (OM) in achieving specific learning outcomes (SLOs). There remains a paucity of comprehensive, comparative research evaluating these methodologies against standardized learning outcomes in the medical undergraduate population. This instigated a comparison of VM and OM as teaching methodologies for pathology in medical education, specifically focusing on their effectiveness in achieving predetermined learning outcomes.
Detailed description
It is now essential to thoroughly evaluate the pedagogical effects of these changing modalities due to the growing trend towards digital learning environments, which has been brought to light by recent global challenges to traditional classroom teaching. By methodically contrasting virtual and optical microscopy for teaching pathology to undergraduate medical students, this work can close this gap. It is anticipated that understanding the superior modality-more especially, how well it achieves predefined learning outcomes-will improve the optimization of pathology instruction in modern medical education and guide evidence-based curriculum selections.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Group I | Experimental | Other: Optical MicroscopyStudents were exposed to optical microscopy (OM); OM is the conventional method of using physical microscopes to examine microscope slides. |
| Group II | Experimental | Other: Virtual MicroscopyStudents were exposed to virtual microscopy (VM); VM is a digital technology that allows students to view and analyze microscope slides through digital platforms. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 20 to 24 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Students of either gender
- Aged 20-24 years
- Studying in fourth-year MBBS
- Willing to participate
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Students, absent during the interventions or assessments
- Declined or withdrew consent at any stage
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Optical MicroscopyStudents were exposed to optical microscopy (OM); OM is the conventional method of using physical microscopes to examine microscope slides. | Other | Group I |
| Virtual MicroscopyStudents were exposed to virtual microscopy (VM); VM is a digital technology that allows students to view and analyze microscope slides through digital platforms. | Other | Group II |
Primary outcome
Perceptions and satisfaction
Time frame: 3 hours
A five-point Likert scale assessed perceptions and satisfaction with the respective teaching methodology. The likert scale responses were graded as 1 for strongly disagree, 2 for disagree, 3 as neutral, 4 agree, and 5 strongly agree.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 24 Dec 2025.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Data can be shared on a reasonable request.
Related trials for Learning Problem
Active, not recruiting
A Mobile App to Improve 24-Hour Movement Guideline Adherence in Preschoolers
Healthy, 24-Hour Movement Guidelines
Recruiting
Online Feeding Education for Fathers of Children With Feeding Problems
Feeding Problems, Parent Training
Not yet recruiting
Talk Parenting Education Program II
Parenting Practices, Self Efficacy
RecruitingObservational study
Vestibular and Postural Function in Children Suspected of Balance Disorders
Children, Only, Vestibular Disorder
Active, not recruiting
Implementation Study With Embedded RCT of a Digital System of Parenting Support Within Government Services in South Africa
Program Effectiveness, Program Implementation
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Sadaf Shafique, FCPS principal investigator
Quaid-E-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur, Pakistan
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Optical Microscopy and Virtual Microscopy in people with Learning Problem, run by Muhammad Aamir Latif at 1 site in Pakistan.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 24 Dec 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Pakistan. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Perceptions and satisfaction (time frame: 3 hours). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 24 Dec 2025.