Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40803672›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025

The Flipped Classroom in Medical Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Dragan Spaic, Zoran Bukumiric, Nina Rajovic, Ksenija Markovic, Marko Savic, Jelena Milin-Lazovic, Nikola Grubor, Nikola Milic, Dejana Stanisavljevic, Aleksa Despotovic and 5 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. A Flipped Classroom Curriculum for Psychiatry Consultation-Liaison Services in a High-Volume Safety-Net Hospital.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Dragan SpaicDepartment of Primary Health Care and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of East Sarajevo, Foca, Bosnia and Herzegovina.ORCID 0000-0003-0892-3283
Zoran BukumiricInstitute of Medical Statistics and Informatics, University of Belgrade Faculty of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia.ORCID 0000-0002-7609-4504
Nina RajovicInstitute of Medical Statistics and Informatics, University of Belgrade Faculty of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia.ORCID 0000-0002-8509-0329
Ksenija MarkovicInstitute of Medical Statistics and Informatics, University of Belgrade Faculty of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia.ORCID 0009-0002-6244-7775
Marko SavicInstitute of Medical Statistics and Informatics, University of Belgrade Faculty of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia.ORCID 0000-0002-0487-8043
Jelena Milin-LazovicInstitute of Medical Statistics and Informatics, University of Belgrade Faculty of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia.ORCID 0000-0002-4655-2383
Nikola GruborInstitute of Medical Statistics and Informatics, University of Belgrade Faculty of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia.ORCID 0009-0007-7876-1554
Nikola MilicInstitute of Medical Statistics and Informatics, University of Belgrade Faculty of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia.ORCID 0009-0000-3246-2283
Dejana StanisavljevicInstitute of Medical Statistics and Informatics, University of Belgrade Faculty of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia.ORCID 0000-0001-8899-2929
Aleksa DespotovicInstitute of Medical Statistics and Informatics, University of Belgrade Faculty of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia.ORCID 0000-0001-8137-911X
Dejan BokonjicDepartment of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of East Sarajevo, Foca, Bosnia and Herzegovina.ORCID 0000-0002-7749-5326
Jelena Vladicic MasicDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of East Sarajevo, Foca, Bosnia and Herzegovina.ORCID 0009-0000-4960-2959
Valerija JanicijevicUniversity of Belgrade Faculty of Education, Belgrade, Serbia.ORCID 0000-0001-7252-7731
Srdjan Masic *Department of Primary Health Care and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of East Sarajevo, Foca, Bosnia and Herzegovina.ORCID 0000-0001-8852-2054
Natasa Milic *Institute of Medical Statistics and Informatics, University of Belgrade Faculty of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia.ORCID 0000-0001-7074-1187

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe concept of flipped classrooms (FCs) is gaining attention in medical education as it aligns with the digital age's demand for more interactive and accessible learning experiences. By shifting the delivery of instructional content outside of the classroom, an FC allows students to engage with materials at their own pace, thereby maximizing in-class time for discussions, problem-solving, and other active learning activities.

objectiveThis study aimed to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis to appraise the comparative effectiveness of FC instruction in contrast to traditional pedagogical modalities, with a particular focus on postepidemic analyses within specific subfields of medical education.

methodsThe PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were systematically searched for studies comparing academic outcomes between the FC and traditional learning approaches in medical education. The primary outcome measures were knowledge assessment and students' satisfaction. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was used as a measure of the overall effect, and subgroup analysis was performed according to the study design (randomized controlled trial [RCT] vs observational). The Cochran Q test and Baujat plots were used to estimate heterogeneity, coupled with I

resultsIn total, 141 studies were included in the systematic review; 127 (90.1%) studies with 21,171 participants were included in the meta-analysis of students' knowledge assessment, of which 37 (29.1%) were RCTs. FCs had significantly better outcomes than the traditional method in knowledge test scores in both observational studies and RCTs (SMD 0.90, 95% CI 0.59-1.20, P<.001 and SMD 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.22, P<.001, respectively). There was substantial heterogeneity among included studies (I

conclusionsThe FC method is associated with better knowledge achievement and greater student satisfaction than the traditional approach in medical education, paving the way for its broader integration into medical school curricula. However, it is essential to consider various factors, such as the availability of resources, faculty readiness, and student preferences when implementing any new educational approach. This study holds promise for advancing medical education by exploring innovative teaching methodologies that leverage technology to enhance learning outcomes.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalProblem-Based LearningHumansStudents, Medicalflipped classroommedical educationmeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID40803672
PMCPMC12391848

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.