Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35155810›Full record

ReviewLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2022

Gamification in otolaryngology: A narrative review.

Zack K Westenhaver, Robert E Africa, René E Zimmerer, Brian J McKinnon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Gamification in otolaryngology: A narrative review.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Gamified Learning among Medical Undergraduates using Digital Platforms: A Quasiexperimental Study.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine
    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

4 authors.

Zack K WestenhaverSchool of Medicine, UTMB Health Galveston Texas USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0666-6394
Robert E AfricaSchool of Medicine, UTMB Health Galveston Texas USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6408-3077
René E ZimmererSchool of Medicine, UTMB Health Galveston Texas USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1180-2039
Brian J McKinnonDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery University of Texas, Medical Branch Galveston Texas USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2257-4721

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe medical field has incorporated gamification elements into education platforms over the past decade. The standard definition for gamification that has been adopted by most research studies is the addition of game elements and game mechanics within a platform to enhance user engagement. In this review, seven established, consolidated components, as well as an additional new or novel component, will be evaluated: a point system/leaderboards, question banks or gradable content, social interaction with other participants, leaderboards, progress or levels, immediate feedback, badges/icons or a reward system, and the novel component, a story line.

methodsTwo reviewers searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge, and the Nursing Registry. This review compares the one identified otolaryngology study with current residency education gamification practices within the medical field.The authors searched "residency AND gamification", "residency AND video games", and "residency AND games". After applying exclusion criteria, the 13 remaining studies included a procedure, questions/scenarios, and at least three gamification elements.

resultsAcross the 13 studies, the average number of included gamification elements was higher than the minimum threshold of three (3.84). Ten of the studies incorporated leaderboards, feedback, and social interaction; eight incorporated a question bank; and four incorporated progress bars, rewards, and story lines. The otolaryngology study incorporated four of the gamification components: a point system, instant feedback/solution after a question was answered, player-to-player communication, and a leaderboard.

conclusionReview of the current literature found that the medical field has limited research regarding the use of gamification in educational platforms. Despite many simulation studies and attempts at gamification, the medical community has not fully embraced gamification within residency education. In closing, the medical education community should establish a definition of "gamification" and survey residency programs to identify desired gamification elements.

Indexed as

applicationgame‐based learninggamificationnarrative reviewotolaryngologyresidency educationserious games

Identifiers

PMID35155810
PMCPMC8823161

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.