Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34309243›Full record

ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2021

Answering questions in a co-created formative exam question bank improves summative exam performance, while students perceive benefits from answering, authoring, and peer discussion: A mixed methods analysis of PeerWise.

Clare Guilding, Rachel Emma Pye, Stephanie Butler, Michael Atkinson, Eimear Field

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Reimagining pharmacology education.Pharmacological reviews · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Clare GuildingFaculty of Medical Sciences, School of Medical Education, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2823-1575
Rachel Emma PyeSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1395-7763
Stephanie ButlerDepartment of English, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0027-7723
Michael AtkinsonFaculty of Medical Sciences, School of Medical Education, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0009-9234
Eimear FieldFaculty of Medical Sciences, School of Medical Education, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiple choice questions (MCQs) are a common form of assessment in medical schools and students seek opportunities to engage with formative assessment that reflects their summative exams. Formative assessment with feedback and active learning strategies improve student learning outcomes, but a challenge for educators, particularly those with large class sizes, is how to provide students with such opportunities without overburdening faculty. To address this, we enrolled medical students in the online learning platform PeerWise, which enables students to author and answer MCQs, rate the quality of other students' contributions as well as discuss content. A quasi-experimental mixed methods research design was used to explore PeerWise use and its impact on the learning experience and exam results of fourth year medical students who were studying courses in clinical sciences and pharmacology. Most students chose to engage with PeerWise following its introduction as a noncompulsory learning opportunity. While students perceived benefits in authoring and peer discussion, students engaged most highly with answering questions, noting that this helped them identify gaps in knowledge, test their learning and improve exam technique. Detailed analysis of the 2015 cohort (n = 444) with hierarchical regression models revealed a significant positive predictive relationship between answering PeerWise questions and exam results, even after controlling for previous academic performance, which was further confirmed with a follow-up multi-year analysis (2015-2018, n = 1693). These 4 years of quantitative data corroborated students' belief in the benefit of answering peer-authored questions for learning.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementEducation, DistanceEducation, Medical, UndergraduateHumansPeer GroupStudents, MedicalSurveys and Questionnairesassessment for learningcollaborative learningformative assessmentgamificationMCQmedical educationpeer learningPeerWisesingle best answer

Identifiers

PMID34309243
PMCPMC8311910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.