ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Flipped classroom and technology-enhanced learning in dermatology education: evidence, implementation, and future directions.
Review 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dermatology education faces limited curriculum time, a visually demanding specialty, and the need to develop both clinical reasoning and procedural competence. The flipped classroom (FC) delivers didactic content before class and reserves class time for active learning. This mini review synthesizes evidence on FC in dermatology education, distinguishes true FC from broader blended or active-learning approaches, and examines how newer image-based technologies such as teledermatology, gamified education, and artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted tools can complement FC. PubMed, Scopus, ERIC, and Google Scholar were searched through August 2026 for studies on FC, blended learning, or technology-enhanced learning in dermatology. Across the reviewed studies, FC and closely related blended approaches were associated with short-term gains in knowledge and satisfaction relative to traditional teaching, with particular promise when combined with case-based or problem-based learning. COVID-19 accelerated adoption and demonstrated adaptability to remote formats. However, most dermatology studies are single-institution, quasi-experimental, small, and short-term, and only two dermatology-specific studies used randomized designs. Evidence on long-term retention, patient-related outcomes, and clinical competence remains lacking, and gains in satisfaction or confidence should not be equated with objective gains in knowledge or skills. Based on the currently limited evidence, FC appears at least comparable to, and sometimes better than, traditional teaching for short-term knowledge and skills. Educators can reasonably adopt FC as part of blended curricula, while researchers should prioritize multicenter randomized trials with standardized objective outcomes, longer follow-up, and patient-level endpoints.
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.