Effectiveness of Escape Room in Medical Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary goal of this meta-analysis is to explore the five factors of knowledge, teamwork, learning satisfaction, anxiety, and interprofessional ability to determine the value of escape rooms in medical education. Up to January 2023, we searched ScienceDirect, Scopus, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, and the Cochrane Library for pertinent works in either English or Chinese. The Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used to assess the quality of studies. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were used to assess statistical heterogeneity, and I2 was used to measure it. Overall, escape rooms had a more significant positive effect than traditional learning on knowledge (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36–1.33), teamwork (SMD: 4.91; 95% CI: 4.58–5.24), learning satisfaction (MD: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.08–0.64), and interprofessional ability (SMD: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.81–1.27). Moreover, the impact of escape rooms on anxiety also had significant effects (SMD: −8.23, 95% CI: −11.64 to −4.82). Escape rooms affect medical students’ knowledge, teamwork, learning satisfaction, interprofessional ability, and anxiety. The findings of this study can be used as evidence that escape rooms is a more effective method than traditional teaching for improving active learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it