ArticleLa Tunisie medicale2025
Medical students' evaluation by serious game in the era of Covid-19 infection.
Article in La Tunisie medicale, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSimulation using serious games (SG) has emerged in the field of training and assessment of medical students.
aimto compare the results of medical students' evaluation by virtual simulation using online SG and clinical case-based multiple-choice questions (MCQ), and to assess the degree of satisfaction with these two evaluation methods.
methodsMedical students from the same level of study participated in this study. SG group had an evaluation by SG dealing with "diagnosis and management of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). MCQ group was evaluated by clinical case-based MCQ having the same topic as SG group. Results of the two groups were compared. A satisfaction questionnaire was filled out by the two groups. The satisfaction degree was compared between the two groups.
resultsA total of 64 medical students (G1:31 and G2: 33) were enrolled. Thirty learners (96.8%) in SG group obtained a total score ≥ 50% versus 69.7% in clinical case-based MCQ group (p = 0.004). The full score was obtained by three learners in SG group; however, no student scored 100% in clinical case-based MCQ group (p = 0.027). Medical evaluation using SG was reported to be more innovative, fun, and realistic compared to evaluation by clinical case-based MCQ.
conclusionSimulation by SG could be an innovative and effective method in evaluating medical students.
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.