Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37016117›Full record

ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2023

Flashcards: The Preferred Online Game-Based Study Tool Self-Selected by Students to Review Medical Histology Image Content.

Priti L Mishall, William Burton, Michael Risley

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2023. 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. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Priti L MishallDepartments of Pathology & Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA. priti.mishall@einsteinmed.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5012-6574
William BurtonDepartment of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.
Michael RisleyDepartment of Developmental & Molecular Biology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medical students use several supplementary digital resources to support learning. Majority of these supplementary resources enhance learning by recall and repetition. A few examples of these resources are concept maps, flashcards (FCs), and self-testing tools. Traditionally, paper-based FCs are used in higher education. The concept of paper-based FCs is extended to the digital world in the form of electronic/web-based FCs. The use of electronic/digital flashcards has been reported to review course material in the medical school curriculum. Some of the medical school coursework requires students to acquire visual skills, for example, histology and pathology. Students, who do not have prior knowledge of the basic content on histology and pathology struggle to identify microscopic tissues and organs. Therefore, students look for other supplementary resources to support visual learning. Digital resources like Anki, Quizlet, and Osmosis provide study tools that support visual skills. A review of the literature revealed only a few publications pertaining to the use of digital testing tools for histology education in medical school curriculum. In the medical histology course at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine (Einstein), Bronx, NY, first-year medical students used a game-based platform (Quizlet) to review image-based histology course content in the form of four Quizlet study sets. Students chose from six Quizlet study tools (Flashcards, Learn, Speller, Test, Match, and Race/Gravity) to review the image-based course material and test their knowledge on accurate identification of histological images. The data on student usage of study tools was tracked and analyzed for 4 years (Graduating Classes of 2018 to 2021) to calculate: the total usage of the game-based study tools (Flashcards, Learn, Speller, Test, Match, and Race/Gravity) over the period of 4 years, total percent usage over 4 years of each game-based study tools (Flashcards, Learn, Speller, Test, Match, and Race/Gravity) in each of the four Quizlet study sets and to identify the preferred game-based study tool. The data showed a consistent year-on-year increase in usage of game-based study tools by 50% (M = 445 in 2018 compared to M = 849 in 2021). For the four Quizlet study sets the percent usage of each study tool Flashcards, Learn, Test, Match, Gravity, and Speller was tracked and combined across the four academic years. It was found that Flashcards were used significantly more frequently than any other tool and this was followed by Learn, Test, Match, Gravity, and Speller (p < 0.0001 using chi-square). The study concludes that flashcards are the preferred study tool used by students to acquire visual skills for identifying histological images and could be incorporated when designing online study tools.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, UndergraduateStudents, MedicalCurriculumEducational StatusHumansLearningFlashcardsGame-based study toolsMedical histologyVisual skills

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.