ArticleImmunoHorizons2026
The use of voiceovers and review games in teaching immunology.
Article in ImmunoHorizons, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Active learning and flipped classrooms have gained popularity in higher education due to their ability to improve educational outcomes. This study evaluated whether combining voiceover lectures and review games could improve learner engagement and satisfaction while achieving learning outcomes comparable to those of traditional immunology didactic lectures. A total of 123 first- and second-year medical students were randomly assigned to groups that took formative quizzes on immunology material after exposure to either: (i) a traditional didactic lecture, (ii) a voiceover lecture followed by an in-class discussion of the voiceover and subsequent review game, or (iii) a blind control group that had no exposure to the material. Furthermore, students provided feedback on the pedagogy and their learning preferences. Students were very enthusiastic about the review games and preferred shorter voiceovers containing formative questions embedded within the voiceover. Importantly, there was no significant difference in quiz performance between the 2 pedagogies, and both groups performed significantly better than the blind control group. A slight but significant decrease in student preference for voiceovers was noted throughout the duration of this multiyear study, which occurred during and shortly after the COVID-19 pandemic. Faculty who observed this pedagogy expressed an increased willingness to use voiceovers and review games if they received training and information technology support. Collectively, this longitudinal study demonstrated support from both faculty and students for the combined use of voiceovers plus review games and captured a potential shift in medical student preferences for learning in recent years during the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.