ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2024
The evaluation of digital educational game use in pharmacology teaching process.
Article in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of short educational videos on learning and retention in undergraduate pharmacology education: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Testing the knowledge of artificial intelligence chatbots in pharmacology: examples of two groups of drugs.PeerJ. Computer science · 2025Article
- The evaluation of digital educational game use in pharmacology teaching process.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to determine the usefulness of educational video games as a variety applied to the traditional teaching of pharmacology in topics of antifungal and hypolipidemic drugs. Sixty-six volunteers were divided into control group (n = 33) and experimental group (n = 33). The first group received traditional seminar only, and the second played video game designed with the use of Kahoot! platform after the seminar. The assessment of knowledge was conducted with the use of three tests: pre-test was presented before seminar, post-test after seminar (for control group) or after playing the video game (for experimental group), and test no. 3 took place 4 weeks later. Analysis of tests' scores with respect to both topics resulted in the observation that the control and experimental groups show statistically significant improvement in knowledge, whether it was measured after the seminar or 4 weeks later. However, the results of experimental group were statistically better in comparison to the control group. It proves that electronic GBL (game-based learning) applied to standard educational processes increases short- and long-term knowledge retention compared to traditional seminars.
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.