ArticleBMC medical education2026
Using Anki and its association with recall and study practices among medical students in Jordanian universities: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the prevalence and perceived effectiveness of Anki among medical students in Jordan, focusing on its usage for key subjects such as pathology, pharmacology, microbiology, and anatomy.
methodsThis cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted among medical students from multiple universities in Jordan. Participants were recruited using a convenience sampling approach through academic and social media platforms over 6 months from October 2024 to May 2025. The inclusion criteria were: current enrollment in a Jordanian medical school, age ≥ 18 years, and consent to participate. The survey included six domains: demographic information; patterns and frequency of Anki usage; subject-specific use of Anki in pathology, pharmacology, microbiology, and anatomy; reasons for using Anki; comparison with traditional study tools; and perceived challenges. Data were analyzed with SPSS version 23 using descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests, and logistic regression.
resultsA total of 318 medical students were enrolled in the study. Participants were approximately evenly distributed by gender (M:167/318, 52.5%, F:151/318, 47.5%) and across all academic years; the fifth year was the highest proportion (101/318, 31.8%). Only 80/318 (25.2%) of students reported using Anki, specifically for pharmacology (75.9%) and pathology (73.4%), while the majority (238/318, 74.8%) used traditional methods. Anki users more frequently reported academic scores above 90% compared with non-users (21.3% vs. 13.9%); however, this association was not statistically significant (OR = 3.93, 95% CI: 0.50–31.24; p = 0.195). Half of users (50%) utilized Anki for USMLE exam preparation. Anki users perceived that Anki improved their academic performance (82.5%) and found it more effective for long-term retention, particularly for daily use, and a higher number of review cards.
conclusionThe findings suggest that Anki is associated with higher perceived benefits for content-heavy subjects such as pharmacology and pathology, supporting self-reported academic improvement through its evidence-based principles of spaced repetition and active recall. However, the platform’s cognitive and time demands, along with technical issues and the potential for burnout, highlight the need for structured guidance and institutional support.
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.