ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Flipped Classroom Model in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Quasi-experimental Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Trial
- Active learning in diabetes education for health professions students: a narrative synthesis of effectiveness and implementation considerations.Medical education online · 2026Review
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
backgroundThe flipped classroom (FC) model has gained increasing recognition as an innovative teaching strategy in medical education, addressing the limitations of passive learning in traditional methods. It takes learning outside the classroom and allows students to preview new material, while leaving classroom time for content-related discussions and joint tasks. However, limited studies have evaluated its impact in Eastern India, particularly in pediatric teaching. The study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the FC model versus the traditional method of teaching in improving knowledge retention and engagement among undergraduate medical students studying pediatric respiratory illnesses. MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective quasi-experimental study was conducted over six months (November 2021 to April 2022) among 130 eighth-semester medical students at Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), Bhubaneswar. Participants were divided into two groups: one receiving traditional lectures and the other exposed to FC sessions covering pediatric respiratory competencies. Pre- and post-test scores were compared using SPSS (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) with a significance threshold of P < 0.05. The scores were compared, and their perception toward the teaching tool was assessed by a questionnaire-based survey.
resultsA total of 130 students, 67 in the control group and 63 in the intervention group, were analyzed for their knowledge score at baseline by a pretested questionnaire. The mean score of knowledge among the control and intervention groups was not different at baseline (P = 0.519). Students in the FC group demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in knowledge scores (mean increase: 2.0 points) compared to the traditional group (mean increase: 0.925 points; P < 0.01). Additionally, 77.8% of participants reported increased engagement in the flipped sessions.
conclusionsThe greater mean scores after the teaching sessions represent the improved perception of the FC teaching-learning approach for repeatability and better memory retention. The FC method was found to be more effective than the traditional method of teaching. The students' feedback was positive toward the FC method. With careful preparation and faculty training, it can address the issue of medical students' lack of competency in pediatrics.
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.