ArticleCureus2026
Flipped Classroom During Revision Sessions for Second-Year MBBS Students: A Mixed-Methods Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe flipped classroom (FC) approach is increasingly being adopted in medical education; however, students' responses to its use during revision sessions remain inadequately explored. This study assessed the perceptions, feasibility, and acceptability of the FC approach during revision sessions among second-year Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) students. METHODOLOGY: This mixed-methods, cross-sectional study was conducted among second-year MBBS students at a tertiary care teaching institute. Feedback from the FC-based revision sessions was collected via a structured Google Form with both closed- and open-ended questions. A total of 36 responses were analyzed using frequencies, percentages, the median and interquartile range (IQR), Cronbach's alpha, composite scores, and thematic analysis.
resultsPositive responses were reported for improved engagement and discussion by 22 (61.1%) students, deepened understanding by 21 (58.3%) students, and improved interaction with classmates by 23 (63.9%) students. Feasibility-related responses were also favorable, with 27 (75.0%) students reporting that the instructions were clear, 28 (77.8%) indicating that the pre-class material was effective, 29 (80.6%) considering the outside preparation time manageable, and 35 (97.2%) expressing comfort with the technology used. Preference for the FC over traditional teaching was reported by 14 (38.9%) students. Regarding the overall learning experience, 15 (41.7%) students rated it as fair, while 12 (33.3%) rated it as good. The median scores were 4 (IQR: 3-4) for engagement, 4 (IQR: 2-4) for understanding, 3 (IQR: 2-4) for effective use of class time, and 4 (IQR: 3-4) for interaction. Internal consistency was good, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.86 for both the educational value domain and the implementation and acceptability domain.
conclusionsThe FC approach during revision sessions was feasible and positively perceived in terms of engagement, understanding, and peer interaction. However, overall acceptability remained moderate, and preference over traditional teaching methods was limited. Improved session structuring, reduction in the number of presentations, and stronger faculty guidance may enhance the effectiveness of FC-based revision teaching.
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.