ArticleBMJ open2024
Bridging theory and practice: a scoping review protocol on gamification's impact in clinical reasoning education.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Global scientific production on gamification in medical education: A bibliometric exploration.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn the rapidly evolving field of medical education, gamification has emerged as a promising strategy to enhance clinical reasoning skills among healthcare professionals. By incorporating game-like elements into the learning environment, gamification strives to enhance engagement, motivation and knowledge retention. Given the importance of clinical reasoning in medical decision-making and patient care, this scoping review protocol aims to systematically explore developments, implementations and outcomes of gamification in clinical reasoning education. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review will follow the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework, enhanced by guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute. We will search four major databases: OVID Medline, Scopus and Web of Science using key terms such as "gamification," "clinical reasoning," and "medical education". Studies will be selected based on the participants, concepts and contexts (PCC) framework, focusing on literature published in English. Two independent reviewers will screen studies and extract data on gamification elements used in clinical reasoning education. Any disagreement between the reviewers will be resolved by consulting a third person. We will provide a narrative synthesis of the findings, highlighting the variety of gamified strategies and their effects on clinical reasoning skills. This review will also map out gaps in the current literature and provide direction for future research. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The scoping review, which aggregates and synthesises publicly available studies, does not require ethics approval due to its nature as a compilation of existing research. The reporting of findings will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist, promoting both thoroughness and transparency in our analysis. Our dissemination plan encompasses publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations at academic conferences focused on medical education. This strategy is designed to engage educators, curriculum designers and policymakers within the sector, ensuring our insights reach those who can apply them most effectively.
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.