ReviewJournal of advances in medical education & professionalism2025
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Impact of Peer-Made MCQ Question-Bank Usage on Summative Assessments in Medical Education.
Review in Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the impact of utilising peer-generated multiple-choice question (MCQ) banks on the summative performance of undergraduate students studying medicine and allied subjects. Answering and writing peer-made MCQ questions are hypothesised to enhance learning through achievement of the domains of Bloom's taxonomy and thus summative examination performance. Methods: A random-effects meta-analysis of correlation coefficients was conducted on six studies (n = 1,571) published between 2011 and 2021, drawn from MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, CENTRAL, and ERIC. The studies included undergraduate medical students from four countries. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Results: A weak positive correlation was found between answering peer-made MCQs and summative performance (Spearman's ρ = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.29, p < 0.0001), with a prediction interval of 0.00 to 0.42, indicating that in future studies, the effect of answering peer-made questions is likely beneficial or, at worst, neutral. A similar weak positive correlation was observed for writing peer-made MCQs (Spearman's ρ = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.32, p < 0.0004), though the prediction interval (-0.27 to 0.61) cannot exclude negative correlation between writing questions and summative performance in future studies. The findings suggest that answering and creating peer-generated MCQs positively influence exam performance. The modest correlations likely reflect confounding factors, such as prior academic performance and socio-economic background. This complicates isolating the impact of MCQ banks and may understate their true impact. Conclusion: This study advocates for the integration of peer-generated MCQ banks into medical curricula, highlighting their potential as a cost-effective method to improve summative performance. Future research should focus on large-scale observational studies to better quantify these effects as well as controlling for confounding factors. The study underscores the value of peer engagement in learning and the utility of peer-made MCQ banks as educational tools.
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.