Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35510025›Full record

ArticleCureus2022

Flipped Classroom versus Traditional Didactic Classroom in Medical Teaching: A Comparative Study.

Milav H Bhavsar, Hardik N Javia, Sanjay J Mehta

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
17.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Biochemistry Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Review on Methodologies and Teaching Resources.Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Milav H BhavsarBiochemistry, C.U. Shah Medical College, Surendranagar, IND.
Hardik N JaviaBiochemistry, C. U. Shah Medical College, Surendranagar, IND.
Sanjay J MehtaMicrobiology, C.U. Shah Medical College, Surendranagar, IND.
CU Shah Medical College and Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background The effective and efficient delivery of healthcare services that the National Medical Commission (NMC), India desires from Indian Medical Graduate (IMG) can only be fulfilled if the learner's participation is extensive. Flipped classroom (FC) may promote enhanced as well as meaningful learning and critical thinking in students. By implementing this method trend can be changed from a teacher-centered approach to a student-centered approach, thus teaching-learning becomes more effective and interesting. It promotes learning and thinking helping the students in diagnosis and formulating appropriate management of patients during the clinical years of medical teaching of MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery) and thereafter. Aim To compare FC and traditional didactic classroom (TDC) teaching for first-year MBBS students. Objectives -To evaluate FC method teaching for first-year MBBS students. -To compare effectiveness of FC and TDC teaching for first-year MBBS students. -To evaluate perception of students toward FC teaching method. Methodology The study was conducted after getting approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee. Total of 100 students volunteered to participate in the study after providing informed consent. Two groups based on pseudo randomization were created and subjected to the FC method and TDC method in module A and crossover of groups was done in module B. Both groups were subjected to post-test after intervention in modules. Feedback was obtained from students on their perception toward the FC method. Results There was a statistically significant difference (p<0.05) in post-test scores of both FC groups in both modules (FC Method: 14.77 ± 2.16 and 11.26 ± 1.76 vs TDC Method: 12.16 ± 2.05 and 10.03 ± 2.57). Overall positive feedback was received for FC method of teaching compared to TDC method. Conclusions Considering responses and results of the assessment, it can be concluded that the FC approach is beneficial for students. It enhances the learning of students. Perception of students toward medical teaching can be greatly improved. It helps students achieve better results in their learning. With larger sample size studies, this result of FC method being a better learning tool will gather more strength.

Indexed as

biochemistryflipped classroommbbsmedical educationtraditional didactic classroom

Identifiers

PMID35510025
PMCPMC9060739
OpenAlexW4221057875

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.