Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Enhancing clinical competence in burn management through a serious educational game: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report 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
backgroundBurn injuries remain a major health challenge, particularly in developing countries, where insufficient clinical training has led to significant competency gaps among medical students and young physicians. Despite the demonstrated potential of serious games to enhance clinical skills through interactive simulation, little research has explored their impact on burn management education. This study was conducted to design and evaluate an educational serious game aimed at improving the clinical competence of medical students in managing diverse and complex burn cases.
methodsThis parallel-group randomized clinical trial, conducted at the Burn Department of Imam Reza Hospital in Mashhad, involved 70 medical students. Inclusion criteria were medical students from Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, about to begin burn clinical rotations, with no prior burn management experience. Participants were randomly assigned to an intervention group, which received standard training plus the serious game, or to a control group that received standard training only. Before and after their training period, students participated in clinical competency assessments that utilized the Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX).
resultsA total of 70 students participated in the study, with 35 allocated to the intervention group and 35 to the control group. No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of demographic characteristics (P > 0.05). Post-intervention evaluations demonstrated statistically significant improvements in all seven skills in both groups (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the intervention group exhibited significantly greater increases in both teacher and student satisfaction compared to the control group (P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe incorporation of serious games into medical education represents a transformative strategy that significantly enhances learning outcomes. These educational tools create engaging and interactive environments that not only reinforce students' clinical skills but also prepare them with the essential competencies needed to tackle real-world challenges effectively. The ongoing exploration of innovative educational strategies is vital for further improving the quality of medical education.
trial registrationThis RCT was registered in the Iran Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCTID: IRCT20171123037599N3, https://irct.behdasht.gov.ir/trial/70898 ), Registration date: 10/08/2023.
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.