Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41695194›Full record

ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2025

Evaluating Medical Education Escape Rooms: A Scoping Review Using the Kirpatrick Model.

Hannah Sturm, Garrett Brown, Eric A Gantwerker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Hannah SturmZucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5355-0566
Garrett BrownZucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, USA.
Eric A GantwerkerZucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1309-9188

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Medical educators are increasingly exploring innovative strategies such as medical education escape rooms (MEERs), team-based games in which participants solve puzzles and complete tasks within a time limit to achieve a goal, to enhance learner engagement. This scoping review aimed to evaluate the utility of MEERs as a teaching method in medical education. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using PubMed, MedEdPORTAL, and Scopus. Inclusion criteria were studies published in the past 12 years, written in English, involving medical students and/or residents, and reporting measurable outcomes. Exclusion criteria included systematic reviews, proof-of-concept studies, and studies outside medical school or residency contexts. Titles and abstracts were screened, followed by full-text review by two independent reviewers (HS and GB). A total of 20 studies met inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and analyzed for study characteristics and outcomes. Results: All 20 studies assessed student reactions, with overwhelmingly positive responses. Reported outcomes included increased engagement, satisfaction, enjoyment, perceived learning, improved teamwork, clinical relevance, desire for more MEERs, and recommendations to peers. Nine studies (45%) evaluated learning outcomes, with significant improvements in pre- to posttest scores. MEERs were found to be more effective than flipped classrooms and traditional lectures and equally effective as case-based learning. One study evaluated behavioral change but found no significant impact on long-term behavioral outcomes. Conclusions: Escape rooms are an effective and engaging educational strategy in medical education, supporting knowledge and skill acquisition. Further research is needed to evaluate their long-term behavioral impact in clinical settings.

Indexed as

Escape RoomsGamificationKirpatrick ModelSimulation-Based LearningTeam-Based Learning

Identifiers

PMID41695194
PMCPMC12905535

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.