ArticleBMC nursing2026
Effectiveness of escape room in Chinese nursing education: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. 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
backgroundEducational escape rooms (EERs), which use immersive, game-based challenges to foster teamwork and critical thinking, are emerging globally in nursing education. As an emerging educational intervention model, EERs have gradually been introduced in China in recent years. While individual studies report positive outcomes, the existing evidence on their effectiveness within the specific context of Chinese nursing education remains fragmented and lacks quantitative synthesis. This gap necessitates a systematic evaluation to consolidate the findings.
objectiveTo synthesize the available evidence to definitively assess the application effects of escape rooms in Chinese nursing education, thereby providing an evidence base for educators.
methodsWe searched for relevant studies published between January 2016 and May 2025 in six databases (PubMed, EBSCO, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang), restricting our search to articles in English or Chinese. RevMan5.4 software was used to conduct a meta-analysis of the binary data in the included studies. The Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used to assess the quality of studies. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were used to assess statistical heterogeneity, and I2 was used to measure it. The review was conducted and reported in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. On August 27, 2025, the review protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251135200).
resultsA total of 19 studies were included, comprising 2,091 participants. Overall, escape rooms had a more significant positive effect than traditional learning methods on knowledge [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 4.59, 95% confidence interval (CI); 3.3–5.82, P < 0.001], clinical skills (SMD = 5.33, 95% CI: 2.61–8.05, P < 0.001), critical thinking (SMD = 11.06, 95% CI: 5.55–16.56, P < 0.001), learning satisfaction (OR = 10.24, 95% CI: 3.03–34.60, P < 0.001), teamwork (SMD = 11.38, 95% CI: 5.77–16.99, P < 0.001), learning engagement level (SMD = 5.40, 95% CI: 4.65–6.16, P < 0.001). Regarding self-directed learning ability, there are statistically significant differences in learning awareness (P < 0.001), learning strategies (P < 0.001), learning behaviors (P < 0.001), and learning evaluation (P < 0.001), but no significant difference in interpersonal relationship skills (P = 0.09).
conclusionsEscape rooms affect nursing students’ and nurses’ critical thinking, knowledge, nursing skills, teamwork, learning satisfaction, and learning engagement level. The findings of this study can be used as evidence that escape rooms is a more effective method than traditional teaching for improving active learning. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.