ArticleBMC medical education2026
Impact of peer assessment on lecture quality and student learning outcomes in undergraduate medical education: a quasi-experimental 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeer review of teaching has been recognized to enhance teaching effectiveness and faculty development, but its impact on lecture quality and student learning outcomes remains unclear. While many institutions rely on student evaluations, evidence on whether peer assessment improves both teaching and learning is limited. This study was designed to examine the effect of peer assessment on lecture quality and student learning outcomes among undergraduate medical students.
methodsThis quasi-experimental study with mixed method approach included faculty (n = 10) and students (n = 120). The intervention group received peer feedback along with standard student evaluations and the control group received standard student evaluations only. The lecture quality was assessed through 5-point Likert scale as well as open ended group discussions as to make quantitative and qualitative assessments respectively. Student’s performance was also checked before and after the lecture related to the topic taught.
resultsPeer review was associated with higher lecture quality ratings after the intervention, with students reporting significant improvements in organization, clarity, and engagement (p < 0.01). At baseline, peer reviewers rated lectures more critically than students; however, this difference reduced following revision. Students in the intervention group demonstrated greater gains in post-lecture knowledge assessments compared with the control group (p < 0.05). Post-intervention qualitative findings from students and peers highlighted better structure, increased interaction, and visible incorporation of feedback. Conversely, students whose lecturers did not undergo peer review continued to report ineffective teaching and minimal responsiveness to feedback.
conclusionStructured peer review may contribute to improvements in lecture quality, faculty teaching effectiveness, and student learning outcomes. Integrating peer assessment alongside traditional student evaluations can strengthen faculty development and improve knowledge retention in undergraduate medical education. Further studies are required to confirm sustainability and generalizability across medical schools in different settings.
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.