Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41798370›Full record

ArticleMedical science educator2025

An Assessment of Anki Flashcards Use in Comparison to Alternative Study Methodologies in First Year Graduate Entry Medical Students.

Colleen Haughey, Sten Kajitani, Maria Buckley, Mawadda Mohamed, Mark Rae, Elizabeth Brint

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science educator, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

6 authors.

Colleen HaugheySchool of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Sten KajitaniSchool of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Maria BuckleySchool of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Mawadda MohamedSchool of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Mark RaeSchool of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Elizabeth BrintSchool of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-9214-149X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

First year graduate entry to medicine (GEM) students require effective personalised study techniques in order to learn significant amounts of factual information. This study analysed learning methodologies utilised by a cohort of first year GEM students and their perception of their utility, particularly of the spaced-repetition learning app, Anki. Furthermore, our study compared assessment performance with study methodology utilised by this cohort of students. In total, 53 students participated in some aspect of the study, with 43 students completing all three components: a pre-module test to assess baseline knowledge of module content, a post-module test, and a survey questionnaire. Our survey revealed that students utilised a diverse range of learning and study methodologies. In terms of satisfaction rating, students positively perceived preparedness for exams and time management, irrespective of the study methodology used. While 80% of study participants reported using Anki, the number of Anki cards used and its daily usage varied significantly among users. Overall, there was no statistically significant benefit for Anki usage in terms of performance outcome compared to those who did not use Anki when the module was considered as a whole. However, we did find it to be of significant benefit to exam performance in two categories: (1) those who used Anki extensively compared to those who did not engage consistently, and (2) a significant correlation between Anki usage and physiology exam performance was identified. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-025-02504-7.

Indexed as

AnkiAssessment outcomeSpaced repetition learning

Identifiers

PMID41798370
PMCPMC12961065

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.