Chemistry-medicine interdisciplinary integration improves knowledge transfer through clinical-topic spiral modules and pedagogical innovationNew Teaching Methods Improve Chemistry Knowledge for Medical Students

Medical chemistry serves as an indispensable bridge connecting foundational chemical sciences with clinical medicine, yet traditional discipline-based teaching models create a persistent gap between chemical principles and clinical practice. This narrative review establishes a five-dimensional analytical framework—driving forces, curriculum restructuring, pedagogical innovation, practical translation, and outcome evaluation—developed from the multidisciplinary-interdisciplinary-transdisciplinary integration continuum, competency-based medical education theory, and constructive alignment principles. The framework, with the traditional discipline-based teaching model as the comparison baseline, is applied to systematically examine 105 studies from 2016 to 2025, identified through a reproducible search protocol across PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC, and CNKI. The analysis reveals a progressive evolution from knowledge-service to competency-construction paradigms across multiple national contexts. Curriculum restructuring has advanced through a complementary three-stage trajectory, with clinical-topic spiral modules demonstrating superior knowledge transfer in settings with established cross-disciplinary faculty collaboration. Pedagogical innovation has achieved contrastive complementarity between case-based and problem-based learning, supported by Bayesian network meta-analysis evidence, though reported effect sizes are moderated by implementation fidelity, class size, and assessment alignment. Experimental teaching reform has progressed along a four-stage trajectory toward interdisciplinary innovative experiments, with virtual simulation addressing infrastructure constraints in resource-limited settings. A multi-level assessment framework, operationalized through an instrument-outcome matrix linking knowledge, clinical reasoning, practical skills, and long-term outcomes, is proposed to replace the current fragmented evaluation landscape. Three persistent bottlenecks—cross-disciplinary faculty development, resource integration mechanisms, and evaluation standard unification—constrain further progress. The review's findings are framed with appropriate caution, acknowledging the predominance of single-center small-sample studies that limit generalizability, and recognizing that high-quality educational research can employ diverse methodologies beyond randomized controlled trials.