Background: It is expected that pharmacology education should prepare students as rational prescriber. Credibility of undergraduate pharmacology curricula is rather questionable in this aspect. As assessment shapes learning priorities, it is crucial to design assessment methods of pharmacology in right way to achieve the expected learning outcomes of future physicians. Materials and Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted to compare the reflection of curricular objectives, content coverage and national health priorities in undergraduate pharmacology written question papers (SAQ) of different universities of Bangladesh in last 10 years (January 2010 to November 2019). Total 131 question papers were collected, and reflection of curricular objectives, content coverage and selective disease burdens were evaluated and compared. Result: One objective regarding factual knowledge (pharmacological effects, mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetic characteristics and adverse reactions of drugs) had significant higher weightage throughout the decade in all universities. There were statistically significant differences in weightage of reflection of five curricular objectives (p value <0.00001, 0.001, 0.003, 0.004, 0.02) among different universities. There was not a single question reflecting the ethical and legal issues involved in drug prescribing, development, manufacture and marketing in the decade in any university. Chemotherapy was the highest covered area (mean 19.4 SD 3.3), followed by central nervous system (mean 16.0 SD 3.4) and general principles of pharmacology (mean 14.3 SD 3.2) throughout the last ten years in all universities. There was statistically also significant difference among different universities in weightage of all content areas except Gastrointestinal pharmacology. Statistically significant difference (p value <0.00001) among different universities in cardiovascular diseases burden was observed. Conclusion: Current study found variation in pharmacology written question papers of different universities in the aspects of reflection of curricular objectives, content coverage and cardiovascular disease burden.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Combined Military Hospital (CMH) Bogura

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors