Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42183420›Full record

ReviewMedical science educator2026

Anki Use and Academic Performance in Medical Education: A Systematic Review of Evidence and Learning Theory.

Nicholas Frappa, Danil Chernov, Morgan Dillon, Matthew G Alben

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical science educator, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Nicholas FrappaJacobs School Of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, 955 Main Street, Buffalo, NY 14203 USA.ORCID 0009-0007-0623-2864
Danil ChernovJacobs School Of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, 955 Main Street, Buffalo, NY 14203 USA.ORCID 0009-0001-1310-623X
Morgan DillonJacobs School Of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, 955 Main Street, Buffalo, NY 14203 USA.ORCID 0009-0009-5032-316X
Matthew G AlbenDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7398-4088

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Anki, an open-source flashcard platform that integrates spaced repetition and retrieval practice, has become a widely used study tool among medical students. Despite its popularity, evidence regarding its academic impact remains limited and heterogeneous. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, PsychINFO, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science to identify studies evaluating Anki use and academic performance in undergraduate medical education. Inclusion criteria required measurement of exam outcomes in medical students using Anki. Eleven eligible studies were qualitatively synthesized. Results: Three studies demonstrated a consistent positive association between regular Anki use and USMLE Step 1 performance. High-frequency users outperformed minimal users by 4-13 points, with one study identifying a dose-response effect based on total cards reviewed. Evidence for university-administered exams was more mixed: some studies found significant benefits with structured Anki programs, while others reported no measurable difference despite positive student perceptions. These discrepancies may reflect differences in deck quality, usage consistency, and shorter preparation timelines for in-course exams. Only one study assessed Step 2 CK and found no significant benefit. Included studies varied considerably in methodology, definitions of Anki "use," and outcome measures. Conclusion: Anki use is associated with higher performance on standardized examinations that emphasize foundational knowledge, including the USMLE Step 1. Findings for course-based examinations were mixed and may depend on contextual factors. Overall, the results are consistent with established learning theory, but evidence is largely observational. Future studies using longitudinal designs and objective measures of Anki use are needed to better define its educational impact. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-026-02643-5.

Indexed as

Academic performanceAnkiMedical studentsRetrieval practiceSpaced repetitionSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID42183420
PMCPMC13197492

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.