SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Application of flipped classroom in surgical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Background: Surgical education is crucial to patient care as it trains surgeons and equips medical students with knowledge and skills. Flipped classroom (FC) is an active teaching approach that has shown potential in medical education, but its impact on surgical education remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of FC compared with traditional lecture (TL) in surgical education. Methods: Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched following a predefined protocol. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (version 2) and the "Risk of Bias" tool from the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group. The certainty of evidence (CoE) was measured applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Pooled effects of FC over TL were calculated using standard mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Results: A total of 11 studies were included in the systematic review and nine in the meta-analysis. FC showed significant benefits over TL in improving learning outcomes as measured by total scores (SMD = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.11-0.63, Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that FC may be more effective in surgical education for improving students' academic performance compared with TL. It may serve as a promising approach for surgical education. More high-quality studies are expected to confirm these findings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024602869, identifier PROSPERO (CRD42024602869).
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.