The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic review of serious games for medical education and surgical skills training
Open accessAbstract
Background: The application of digital games for training medical professionals is on the rise. So-called ‘serious’ games form training tools that provide a challenging simulated environment, ideal for future surgical training. Ultimately, serious games are directed at reducing medical error and subsequent healthcare costs. The aim was to review current serious games for training medical professionals and to evaluate the validity testing of such games. Methods: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsychInfo and CINAHL were searched using predefined inclusion criteria for available studies up to April 2012. The primary endpoint was validation according to current criteria. Results: A total of 25 articles were identified, describing a total of 30 serious games. The games were divided into two categories: those developed for specific educational purposes (17) and commercial games also useful for developing skills relevant to medical personnel (13). Pooling of data was not performed owing to the heterogeneity of study designs and serious games. Six serious games were identified that had a process of validation. Of these six, three games were developed for team training in critical care and triage, and three were commercially available games applied to train laparoscopic psychomotor skills. None of the serious games had completed a full validation process for the purpose of use. Conclusion: Blended and interactive learning by means of serious games may be applied to train both technical and non-technical skills relevant to the surgical field. Games developed or used for this purpose need validation before integration into surgical teaching curricula.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.3.363 · Cited by 9,564 · cited 1×
“This corresponds well to Ericsson and colleagues’ theory of deliberate practice; as players are not naturally ‘good’ at a game, intentional repetitive training makes a player become an expert 7 .”
BackgroundCochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Higgins, J. P. T., Green, S., & Ben Van Den, A. (2020) · International Coaching Psychology Review · doi:10.53841/bpsicpr.2020.15.2.123 · Cited by 5,670
Action video game modifies visual selective attention
Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01647 · Cited by 2,540
Cited by
Ryan, G. V., Callaghan, S., Rafferty, A., Higgins, M. F., Mangina, E., & McAuliffe, F. (2022) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/30082 · Cited by 242
“In addition, it facilitates practice without the risk of human harm and also helps build professional skills and teamwork [18,19].”
Gamification and multimedia for medical education: a landscape review
McCoy, L., Lewis, J. H., & Dalton, D. (2016) · Journal of Osteopathic Medicine · doi:10.7556/jaoa.2016.003 · Cited by 223
A Review of Gamification for Health-Related Contexts
Pereira, P., Duarte, E., Rebelo, F., & Noriega, P. (2014) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07626-3_70 · Cited by 162
Dankbaar, M. E. W., Alsma, J., Jansen, E. E. H., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., van Saase, J. L. C. M., & Schuit, S. C. E. (2016) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-015-9641-x · Cited by 147
A psychoengineering paradigm for the neurocognitive mechanisms of biofeedback and neurofeedback
Gaume, A., Vialatte, A., Mora-Sánchez, A., Ramdani, C., & Vialatte, F. B. (2016) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.06.012 · Cited by 133
Bawa, P. (2019) · Journal of Educational Technology Systems · doi:10.1177/0047239518804173 · Cited by 92
Emerging trends in gamification for clinical reasoning education: a scoping review
Lee, C.-Y., Lee, C.-H., Lai, H.-Y., Chen, P.-J., Chen, M.-M., & Yau, S.-Y. (2025) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-025-07044-7 · Cited by 60
Hemodynamic monitoring in the era of digital health
Michard, F. (2016) · Annals of Intensive Care · doi:10.1186/s13613-016-0119-7 · Cited by 57
Empowering vulnerable target groups with serious games and gamification
van der Lubbe, L. M., Gerritsen, C., Klein, M. C. A., & Hindriks, K. V. (2021) · Entertainment Computing · doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2020.100402 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Graafland, M., Schraagen, J. M., & Schijven, M. P.
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-09-07
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1322-1330
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2023126559
- Cited by
- 676
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
