ArticleBMC medical education2026
Game-based blended learning versus traditional lecture for evidence-based medicine (EBM) competencies in undergraduate medical students: 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveEvidence-based medicine (EBM) competencies are crucial for medical students, yet they are often not fully developed. The best teaching methods for cultivating these skills remain uncertain. This study aimed to compare the effects of a game-based blended learning approach versus traditional lecture-based instruction on the development of EBM competencies among undergraduate medical students.
methodThis quasi-experimental study was conducted at the Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences (SSU). Fifty-eight clerkship students were cluster-assigned to intervention (puzzle-based blended, n = 27) or control (interactive lecture, n = 31). The intervention group participated in the blended game-based learning, combining asynchronous pre-class learning with an in-person, puzzle-based game. The control group received interactive lecture-based sessions delivered by an EBM expert. EBM competency was measured pre/post with the Assessing Competency in Evidence-Based Medicine (ACE) tool. ACE consists of a short clinical scenario followed by 15 binary questions. Learners in the intervention and control groups participated in the ACE examination, which was administered one week before the training and one week after the training. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics, including mean (standard deviation) for continuous variables and frequency (percentage) for categorical variables. Independent t-tests and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess the intervention effect. A statistically significant result was considered 0.05.
resultsIn the intervention group, the mean score for EBM competency increased significantly from 3.55 (SD = 1.71) before the intervention to 13.11 (SD = 2.24) after the intervention (p < 0.001). In the control group, the mean EBM competency score rose from 4.12 (SD = 2.20) pre-intervention to 10.12 (SD = 2.23) post-intervention (p < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, the impact of the intervention on total EBM competency scores remained statistically significant (F (1, 53) = 21.46, p < 0.001), with a large effect size (partial η² = 0.292).
conclusionThe game-based blended learning is effective for teaching Evidence-Based Medicine because it organizes the sequential and interconnected aspects of the EBM decision-making pathway. Notably, the findings indicate that the method is effective in developing higher-order EBM skills that require critical thinking, integration, and clinical judgment. The game-based blended learning-a specific, low-technology game genre-is highly effective for EBM education, making it accessible to institutions with limited technological resources.
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.