ArticleBMC medical education2023
Can gamified surgical sets improve surgical instrument recognition and student performance retention in the operating room? A multi-institutional experimental crossover study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the effects of apprenticeship training by sandwich feedback and traditional methods on final-semester operating room technology students' perioperative competence and performance: a randomized, controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2024Trial
- SurgeryMate app: developing and evaluating a training app for surgical instruments and operating room equipment.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Augmented Reality and Gamification vs. Traditional Surgical Instrument Training on Knowledge and Skills of Medical Students: A 2×2 Factorial Randomized Study.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- A Guide to Opportunities and Challenges of Developing a Virtual Reality Simulation for Disaster Medicine Courses: A Letter to Editor.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSurgery requires a high degree of precision, speed, and concentration. Owing to the complexity of the modern world, traditional methods cannot meet these requirements. Therefore, in this study, we investigated students' diagnostic skills in the Operating Room in the context of surgical instruments by using gamification of surgical instruments and a crossover design.
methodThe study design was a multi-institutional quasi-experimental crossover and involved a three-arm intervention (with gender-specific block randomisation: Group A, B, and C) with a pre-test and three post-tests. A total of 90 students fell into three groups of 30 participants each. The surgical sets were learned for one semester through game-based instruction and traditional teaching, and then three OSCE tests were administered with time and location differences. Using one-way ANOVA, OSCE results were compared in the game, traditional, and control groups. The effectiveness of the intervention was tested in each group by repeated measures.
resultThe pretest scores of all three groups did not differ significantly. In the OSCE tests, both groups, A and B, performed similarly. However, these tests showed a significant difference in grouping between training through games and training in the traditional way. There was no significant difference between OSCE tests 2 and 3 in the game-based training group, indicating that what was learned was retained, while in the traditional method training group, OSCE 3 test scores declined significantly. Furthermore, repeated measures showed the effectiveness of game-based training.
conclusionIn this study, gamification has turned out to be very effective in helping learners learn practical skills and leading to more sustainable learning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.