Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 406

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A systematic review of serious games in medical education: quality of evidence and pedagogical strategy

Open access
Gorbanev, Iouri, Agudelo-Londoño, Sandra, González, Rafael A., Cortes, Ariel, Pomares, Alexandra, Delgadillo, Vivian, Yepes, Francisco J., Muñoz, Óscar·2018·Medical Education Online

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The literature shows an optimistic landscape for the effectiveness of games in medical education. Nevertheless, games are not considered mainstream material in medical teaching. Two research questions that arise are the following: What pedagogical strategies do developers use when creating games for medical education? And what is the quality of the evidence on the effectiveness of games? METHODS: A systematic review was made by a multi-disciplinary team of researchers following the Cochrane Collaboration Guidelines. We included peer-reviewed journal articles which described or assessed the use of serious games or gamified apps in medical education. We used the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) to assess the quality of evidence in the use of games. We also evaluated the pedagogical perspectives of such articles. RESULTS: Even though game developers claim that games are useful pedagogical tools, the evidence on their effectiveness is moderate, as assessed by the MERSQI score. Behaviourism and cognitivism continue to be the predominant pedagogical strategies, and games are complementary devices that do not replace traditional medical teaching tools. Medical educators prefer simulations and quizzes focused on knowledge retention and skill development through repetition and do not demand the use of sophisticated games in their classrooms. Moreover, public access to medical games is limited. DISCUSSION: Our aim was to put the pedagogical strategy into dialogue with the evidence on the effectiveness of the use of medical games. This makes sense since the practical use of games depends on the quality of the evidence about their effectiveness. Moreover, recognition of said pedagogical strategy would allow game developers to design more robust games which would greatly contribute to the learning process.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10872981.2018.1438718

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 45 references

Cited by

See all 406

Metadata

Authors
Gorbanev, I., Agudelo-Londoño, S., González, R. A., Cortes, A., Pomares, A., Delgadillo, V., Yepes, F. J., & Muñoz, Ó.
Venue
Medical Education Online
Published
2018-01
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
1438718
ISSN
1087-2981 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2792311375
Cited by
406
References
45
FWCI
7.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A systematic review of serious games in medical education: quality of evidence and pedagogical strategy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10872981.2018.1438718
The paper
Gorbanev, I., Agudelo-Londoño, S., González, R. A., Cortes, A., Pomares, A., Delgadillo, V., Yepes, F. J., & Muñoz, Ó. (2018). A systematic review of serious games in medical education: quality of evidence and pedagogical strategy. Medical Education Online. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2018.1438718

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.