ArticleMedical science educator2026
Design of Learner-Created Electronic Flashcards in Undergraduate Medical Education: Implications for Knowledge and Skill Development.
Article in Medical science educator, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
EFs are an increasingly popular active learning tool among medical learners. Many learners use EFs created by other learners-the content and quality of which may go unchecked by experts and educators. Of central concern is whether learner-created flashcards adequately support competency and skill development in addition to facilitating knowledge acquisition. Our qualitative study applied an inductively and deductively developed framework for EF design to a random sample of 1,179 flashcards from popular learner-created EF decks for undergraduate medical education (UME). We categorized each flashcard across four different dimensions: Content Area (e.g., flashcard is relevant to clinical vs. basic science fields), Clinical Reasoning Domain (e.g., flashcard supports reasoning like diagnosis), Knowledge Domain (e.g., flashcard tests procedural vs. informational knowledge), and Cognitive Process (e.g., flashcard involves recalling vs. applying knowledge). EFs in our sample tested a wide variety of knowledge in a variety of ways beyond simple factual recall. We report learner-created EFs can likely elicit higher-order thinking skills and test clinically relevant knowledge which may support clinical reasoning and procedural skill development. However, while Step 2 decks contained more clinically relevant and complex flashcards than Step 1 or preclinical decks, overall clinical relevance and complexity in learner-created EFs was limited. EFs have the potential to support learners in both knowledge acquisition and development of critical skills and competencies. However, learner-created EF decks may benefit from oversight by expert-educators to ensure their content and quality aligns with educational goals.
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.