ArticleMedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources2025
BINGO! Elevating Medical Physiology Tutorials Through Gamification.
Article in MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bingo Lab: game-based learning in microbiology.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Bingo! Gamifying Pediatric Rheumatology Education One Square at a Time.Perspectives on medical education · 2025Article
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
Introduction: We introduced a BINGO game as an active learning strategy for pulmonary, renal, and endocrine physiology, aiming to enhance student engagement and application of physiology knowledge. Methods: Each BINGO tutorial utilized a template featuring 50-60 questions aligned with prior learning events, was delivered to 90 second-year medical students, and lasted 50-80 minutes. Iterative improvements, including revealing correct answers and a polling system, were implemented based on student feedback. Sessions required BINGO materials, prizes, and, in one iteration, polling software. Postsession surveys assessed perceptions and engagement via a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Results: Of the 90 students participating, between 31 and 47 (34%-52%) responded to each postevent survey. Students reported high engagement (average: 4.4) and perceived effectiveness of time spent (average: 4.1) across BINGO games. The games were rated as effective educational tools (average: 4.2) and valuable for applying physiology knowledge (average: 4.4) on diverse topics (average: 4.4). Students expressed a desire for continued BINGO use in future tutorials (average: 4.2). Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences among the three iterations. Discussion: Students valued iterative changes based on their feedback, such as revealing correct answers after questions. The pulmonary survey led to implementing this change in the renal BINGO tutorial, and the renal survey prompted further improvements in the endocrine tutorial, addressing the need for sufficient explanation of correct answers. Students also appreciated the abundance of practice questions provided.
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.