JMIR J Med Internet Res Journal of Medical Internet Research 1438-8871 JMIR Publications Toronto, Canada v27i1e60757 40803672 10.2196/60757 Review Review The Flipped Classroom in Medical Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis de Azevedo Cardoso Taiane Aung Htar Htar Yeh Wan-Yu Ozdamli Fezile Ignjatovic Aleksandra Spaic Dragan 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0892-3283 Bukumiric Zoran 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7609-4504 Rajovic Nina 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8509-0329 Markovic Ksenija 2 https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6244-7775 Savic Marko 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0487-8043 Milin-Lazovic Jelena 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4655-2383 Grubor Nikola 2 https://orcid.org/0009-0007-7876-1554 Milic Nikola 2 https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3246-2283 Stanisavljevic Dejana 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8899-2929 Despotovic Aleksa 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8137-911X Bokonjic Dejan 3 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7749-5326 Vladicic Masic Jelena 4 https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4960-2959 Janicijevic Valerija 5 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7252-7731 Masic Srdjan 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8852-2054 Milic Natasa 2
Institute of Medical Statistics and Informatics University of Belgrade Faculty of Medicine Dr Subotica 15 Belgrade, 11000 Serbia 381 11 685 888 natasa.milic@med.bg.ac.rs
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7074-1187 Department of Primary Health Care and Public Health Faculty of Medicine University of East Sarajevo Foca Bosnia and Herzegovina Institute of Medical Statistics and Informatics University of Belgrade Faculty of Medicine Belgrade Serbia Department of Pediatrics Faculty of Medicine University of East Sarajevo Foca Bosnia and Herzegovina Department of Internal Medicine Faculty of Medicine University of East Sarajevo Foca Bosnia and Herzegovina University of Belgrade Faculty of Education Belgrade Serbia Corresponding Author: Natasa Milic natasa.milic@med.bg.ac.rs 2025 13 8 2025 27 e60757 20 5 2024 7 10 2024 25 12 2024 25 4 2025 ©Dragan Spaic, Zoran Bukumiric, Nina Rajovic, Ksenija Markovic, Marko Savic, Jelena Milin-Lazovic, Nikola Grubor, Nikola Milic, Dejana Stanisavljevic, Aleksa Despotovic, Dejan Bokonjic, Jelena Vladicic Masic, Valerija Janicijevic, Srdjan Masic, Natasa Milic. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 13.08.2025. 2025

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (ISSN 1438-8871), is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

 Background

The concept of flipped classrooms (FCs) is gaining attention in medical education as it aligns with the digital age’s demand for more interactive and accessible learning experiences. By shifting the delivery of instructional content outside of the classroom, an FC allows students to engage with materials at their own pace, thereby maximizing in-class time for discussions, problem-solving, and other active learning activities.

 Objective

This study aimed to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis to appraise the comparative effectiveness of FC instruction in contrast to traditional pedagogical modalities, with a particular focus on postepidemic analyses within specific subfields of medical education.

 Methods

The PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were systematically searched for studies comparing academic outcomes between the FC and traditional learning approaches in medical education. The primary outcome measures were knowledge assessment and students’ satisfaction. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was used as a measure of the overall effect, and subgroup analysis was performed according to the study design (randomized controlled trial [RCT] vs observational). The Cochran Q test and Baujat plots were used to estimate heterogeneity, coupled with I2. Highly influential studies were identified; sensitivity analyses and metaregression were performed.

 Results

In total, 141 studies were included in the systematic review; 127 (90.1%) studies with 21,171 participants were included in the meta-analysis of students’ knowledge assessment, of which 37 (29.1%) were RCTs. FCs had significantly better outcomes than the traditional method in knowledge test scores in both observational studies and RCTs (SMD 0.90, 95% CI 0.59-1.20, P<.001 and SMD 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.22, P<.001, respectively). There was substantial heterogeneity among included studies (I2=95.2%, τ2=1.614; P<.001). The funnel plot showed high asymmetry with significant small study effects (P<.001). However, the effect estimate remained robust to the exclusion of highly influential studies in the sensitivity analysis. In total, 27 (21.3%) studies with a total of 5842 participants reported students’ satisfaction. Higher student satisfaction scores for FCs were demonstrated in contrast to control groups (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.45-1.19; P<.001). There was substantial heterogeneity among the included studies (I2=97.8%, τ2=0.913; P<.001) but no evidence for publication bias, and no studies were found to be influential.

 Conclusions

The FC method is associated with better knowledge achievement and greater student satisfaction than the traditional approach in medical education, paving the way for its broader integration into medical school curricula. However, it is essential to consider various factors, such as the availability of resources, faculty readiness, and student preferences when implementing any new educational approach. This study holds promise for advancing medical education by exploring innovative teaching methodologies that leverage technology to enhance learning outcomes.

 flipped classroom medical education meta-analysis Introduction

The rapid advancement of emerging technologies has prompted a reassessment of prevailing educational methodologies [1-3]. The wide accessibility of modern information and communication (IC) technologies has fundamentally altered the means of information retrieval, collaborative endeavors, and communication channels. These technologies have facilitated a novel learning paradigm wherein students enjoy and benefit from immediate and constant access to educational resources. While conventional pedagogical approaches have historically served to disseminate information broadly, they may exhibit shortcomings in cultivating solution-oriented competencies and practical knowledge application among students [4]. Consequently, there has been a rising scholarly interest in the flipped classroom (FC) model, also referred to as “flipped learning,” which represents a pedagogical framework that disrupts conventional learning modalities by integrating traditional face-to-face instruction with online educational platforms [5]. It involves the delivery of foundational content outside of traditional class hours, often via digital mediums. Conversely, activities traditionally designated as homework, such as problem-solving exercises and application-oriented tasks, are relocated to the classroom environment [2]. This instructional approach typically necessitates students’ independent engagement with prerecorded lectures or online materials before in-person instructional sessions, which are structured around student-centered activities aimed at fostering the application of previously acquired knowledge [6].

Moreover, the inconsistency inherent in traditional formative assessment practices and the limited avenues for communication between educators and students present challenges in addressing the entirety of the learning continuum. However, the FC model may offer solutions to these challenges associated with foundational learning and motivational impediments [7,8]. As traditional paradigms of medical education demand considerable temporal and resource allocations from both instructors and learners, the assessment of the potential impact of an FC and its practical use within the current medical education curricula has become paramount in enhancing educational efficacy [9-12]. Nonetheless, entrenched inertia within large academic institutions often impedes the adoption of innovative pedagogical approaches, notwithstanding meta-analytic findings substantiating the efficacy of FCs in health-related education [13,14]. This resistance to change is partly attributable to historical gaps in training directed toward students and educators in leveraging IC technologies within instructional contexts [15]. Successful navigation of technologically enriched educational milieux within the medical domain necessitates the acquisition of IC competencies, compounded by challenges uniquely relevant to medical education.

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effects of an FC on students’ learning demonstrated a large variance across various disciplines and academic levels, with medicine being among those scientific fields having the lowest effect [16]. These findings further support the role of assessing the possible moderators and confounds [16] to explain the true impact of the FC model on advanced learning in a particular academic field. However, among the 46 identified meta-analyses, just a few examined student performances in an FC compared to the traditional learning environment for health care professionals (in a pre−COVID-19 pandemic setting), and none with a specific focus on higher medical education, excluding related fields, such as dentistry, pharmacy, nursing, and others. In addition, the postpandemic landscape warrants a reevaluation of the prospects for FC implementation, especially in medical fields. In response to the pressing circumstances during the COVID-19 pandemic, medical faculties have undergone adaptations to operate within pandemic-induced restrictions, bolstering capacities for digital engagement through intensive training initiatives targeting students and faculties on IC technologies use within instructional frameworks [17]. Thus, in this study, we aimed to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to appraise the comparative effectiveness of FC instruction in contrast to traditional pedagogical modalities, with a particular focus on postepidemic analyses within specific subfields of medical education. This approach aims to address gaps identified in the published literature and highlight the relevance of an FC in evolving medical education contexts.

 Methods

The systematic review was conducted per the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines of Observational Studies in Epidemiology [18,19]. The search strategy was developed by a biostatistician and informatician with expertise in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses and experience using IC technologies as educational tools (NM and SM).

Search Strategy

The PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched until October 10, 2024, for studies containing the following search terms: “(flip* OR invert*) AND (classroom OR learn* OR instruction* OR course*) AND medic*.”

 Eligibility Criteria

Rayyan, a web-based technology platform for conducting systematic reviews, was used to store publications, delete duplicates, record the reviewer’s decisions, and help resolve conflicts. After removing duplicates, 2 reviewers independently screened potentially relevant titles and abstracts. The papers were equally distributed among reviewer pairs (D Spaic and NR; KM and MS; JM-L and NG; and Nikola Milic and AD). Discrepancies during the screening process were resolved through discussion, either with the involvement of a third reviewer (D Stanisavljevic, DB, JVM, VJ, SM, and Natasa Milic) or by reaching a consensus among the reviewers. Before proceeding with the full-text screening process, studies underwent inclusion based on eligibility criteria and exclusion if the title and abstract lacked sufficient information. The following inclusion criteria were used: (1) studies that compared FCs with any other learning method, (2) studies focusing on medical students, and (3) original articles.

Articles containing any of the following were excluded: (1) studies exclusively evaluating the efficacy of the FC approach (ie, studies without control group) or studies that did not evaluate the FC approach; (2) studies that did not report outcomes of interest (ie, knowledge assessment or students’ satisfaction); (3) studies that included health care professionals or students of disciplines other than medicine; (4) studies not written in the English language; and (5) publications that were book chapters, reviews, case reports, editorials, letters to the editor, conference abstracts, and theses. The full-text papers were equally distributed among reviewer pairs (D Spaic and NR; KM and MS; JM-L and NG; and Nikola Milic and AD), and each reviewer independently screened the article’s text. In the case of disagreements, a third reviewer (D Stanisavljevic, DB, JVM, VJ, SM, and Natasa Milic) independently evaluated the articles and made the final decision regarding their inclusion or exclusion.

 Data Extraction

Two independent reviewers extracted the following data: authors, publication year, country of origin, study population, study design (randomized controlled trial [RCT] or non-RCT design and whether baseline testing was conducted), duration of intervention, sample size, age, and sex. The following relevant outcomes were extracted: student knowledge assessment and student satisfaction with used learning approach.

 Individual Effect Size Pooling, Study Heterogeneity, and Risk of Bias

The primary outcome measures were knowledge assessment and students’ satisfaction, presented as means with SD. Students’ satisfaction reported as a proportion of students satisfied with the applied teaching approach was also assessed. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was used as a measure of the overall effect, and subgroup analysis was performed according to study design (RCTs vs observational). Random-effects models via the Der Simonian-Laird method were used to pool individual trial results, examine differences between the means of the FC and control group in units of SDs, and estimate SMDs. GetData Graph Digitizer (version 2.26.0.20 [20]) was used to read knowledge test scores and students’ satisfaction levels when figures but no tables were available in the original article. In cases where means and/or SDs were not reported, the median was used to approximate the arithmetic mean, and IQR/1.35 was used to approximate the SD. If SEs were reported, the SD was calculated as SD = SE × √n. In cases of reporting ranges, the SD was estimated as (maximum−minimum)/4. Cochran Q test and Baujat plots were used to estimate heterogeneity. Furthermore, we have reported I2 heterogeneity measures considering the known limitations of Cochran Q tests. According to the Cochrane Handbook, I2<30%, I2=30%-60%, and I2>60 correspond to low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively.

A separate forest plot was presented for each analysis, showing the SMD (box), 95% CI (lines), and weight (size of box) for each publication. We used the diamond symbol to represent the overall effect size (ES). Prediction interval, based on t-distribution, was also estimated and presented in addition to SMDs. Furthermore, SMDs were interpreted using Cohen d ES, and common language ESs were calculated to better communicate the differences between the FC and control groups. A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses. Data visualization and statistical analysis were done using R meta and metafor packages (version 4.0.0; R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

 Influence Analysis

A separate analysis was conducted to identify highly influential studies and quantify their impact by evaluating the standardized residuals, difference in fits (DFFITS), Cook distance, leave-one-out 𝜏2 (LOO-𝜏2), and Cochrane Q metrics for differential heterogeneity assessment. Influence analysis was performed using the dmetar package.

 Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the effects of (1) the exclusion of highly influential studies and (2) the replacement of knowledge test values in studies where multiple tests were performed.

 Publication Bias

Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots. An Egger test was performed and reported alongside the funnel plots to quantify the amount of asymmetry. The trim-and-fill method was used to identify and impute hypothetically missing studies to correct for funnel plot asymmetry, providing an adjusted estimate of the effect.

 Risk of Bias

Two reviewers independently evaluated the potential for bias in each RCT and the overall quality of the collected evidence using the Risk of Bias 2 tool, a component of the Cochrane Collaboration’s framework for assessing bias in randomized trials. The Risk of Bias 2 tool examines multiple domains of bias, including those related to the randomization process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, outcome measurement, and the selection of reported results. For observational studies, the reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias within each study using an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa tool and the guidelines outlined by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations Working Group.

 Metaregression

Univariate and multivariate metaregression analyses were performed for final knowledge assessment as an outcome measure. Due to a lot of missing data on predictors within studies, we performed predictor selection (1) based on the frequency of reporting in a minimum of 100 studies and (2) by performing forward stepwise selection on a subset of studies with complete cases, optimizing for the Akaike Information Criterion.

 Results Study Selection

A total of 6940 potentially eligible publications were found. After removing duplicates, 4307 abstracts were screened for eligibility. Of the 325 publications sought for retrieval, 257 full-text articles were reviewed and 141 were selected for inclusion in the systematic review [21-161]. A flowchart illustrating this selection process is presented in Figure 1.

Flowchart of study selection process. WoS: Web of Science.

 Study Characteristics

Among the 141 studies in the systematic review, 69 (48.9%) were conducted in the United States and China. Studies were published between 2013 and 2024, with sample sizes ranging from 18 to 1016 participants. The study groups’ ages ranged from a minimum average age of 18.9 years to 38.5 years. In 3 (2.1%) studies, all participants were female. Of the 141 studies, 111 (78.7%) included undergraduate students, while 29 (20.6%) involved postgraduate students. More than half of the studies (78/141, 55.3%) focused on clinical subjects, 45 (31.9%) on basic science subjects, and 9 (6.4%) on public health. Overall, 104 (73.8%) were observational studies, and 37 (26.2%) were RCTs. A baseline knowledge assessment was performed in 44 (31.2%) studies, while 91 (64.5%) studies included only a final knowledge assessment. Detailed breakdowns of all eligible studies included in the systematic review are presented in Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1 [21-161].

 Knowledge Assessment Between the FC and Control Group

In total, 127 studies with 21,171 participants (FC: n=9865; control: n=11,306) reported final knowledge scores. The meta-analysis results identified significant differences in final knowledge scores between the FC and control groups (SMD 0.90, 95% CI 0.68-1.13; P<.001), thus favoring an FC (Table 1). However, there was substantial heterogeneity among included studies (I2=95.2%, τ2=1.6136; P<.001; Figure S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1) and the funnel plot showed high asymmetry (Figure S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1) with significant small study effects (P<.001). After applying the trim-and-fill method, the adjusted ES was attenuated (SMD 0.30, 95% CI 0.002-0.59; P=.049; Table 2).

The observational study design was used in 90 studies with a total of 16,676 participants (FC: n=7613; control: n=9063), while the RCT design was used in 37 studies with a total number of 4495 participants (FC: n=2252; control: n=2243). The final knowledge scores were higher in an FC in contrast to the control group in both observational studies and RCTs (SMD 0.90, 95% CI 0.59-1.20; P<.001 and SMD 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.22; P<.001, respectively; Figures 2 and 3). In both observational and RCT studies, there was a substantial heterogeneity among the included studies (I2=95.6%, τ2=2.1195, P<.001 and I2=93.2%, τ2=0.7142, P<.001, respectively). Regarding the assessment of risk of bias in the RCTs included in the meta-analysis, there were some concerns about bias in most of the included studies (Figure S2 in Multimedia Appendix 1). For observational studies, there was an overall moderate risk of bias, with the quality of included studies ranging from 4 to 9, the highest rating being 9. Additional subgroup analyses of studies reporting knowledge scores based on study level, study subject, course duration, and differences among instructors reveal the same large heterogeneity among the included studies (Table S2 in Multimedia Appendix 1).

The SMD for final knowledge scores in the overall meta-analysis, as well as in both observational studies and RCTs, indicated a large ES (≥0.8), with the FC group outperforming approximately 74% of individuals in the control group. Additional details on the common language ESs are provided in Table 1.

In the overall meta-analysis of the final knowledge score, 5 studies were found to be highly influential; however, the exclusion of these studies had no significant effect on the pooled effect estimate. The robustness of the effect estimate was also assessed in sensitivity analysis by rerunning the meta-analysis with outcomes substituted with alternatives in studies where they were available. The effect estimate remained robust to these changes (Table 2; Figure S3 in Multimedia Appendix 1).

The standardized mean difference (SMD), Cohen effect size, and common language effect size (CLES) for final knowledge score and student satisfaction between the flipped classroom (FC) and control group.

Analysis SMD (95% CI) Effect sizea CLES (95% CI)
Final knowledge score between the FC and control group
All 0.90 (0.68-1.13) Large 74 (68-79)
Observational 0.90 (0.59-1.20) Large 74 (66-80)
RCTsb 0.93 (0.65-1.22) Large 74 (68-81)
Final knowledge score in studies reporting baseline knowledge test
All 0.97 (0.53-1.40) Large 75 (65-84)
Observational 0.99 (0.22-1.76) Large 76 (56-89)
RCTs 0.97 (0.50-1.44) Large 75 (64-85)
Student satisfaction assessment
All 0.82 (0.45-1.19) Large 72 (62-80)
Observational 0.87 (0.39-1.35) Large 73 (61-83)
RCTs 0.69 (0.17-1.22) Medium 69 (55-81)

aCohen d standardized effect size.

bRCT: randomized controlled trial.

Meta-analysis of studies reporting knowledge scores (overall effect, influence, sensitivity, and trim-and-fill analysis).

Analysis SMDa (95% CI) 95% prediction interval I2 (95% CI)
Overall 0.90 (0.68-1.13) −1.62 to 3.43 95.2 (94.6-95.6)
Influential study removedb 0.71 (0.55-0.86) −0.98 to 2.40 94.3 (93.7-94.9)
Sensitivity analysis 0.84 (0.61-1.07) −1.75 to 3.43 95.3 (94.8-95.8)
Trim and fill 0.30 (0.002-0.59) −3.44 to 4.04 96.8 (96.5-97.0)

aSMD: standardized mean difference.

bAristotle et al [31], 2021; Cai et al [45], 2022; Feng et al [57], 2022; Khojasteh et al [81], 2021; and Peterson et al [118], 2017.

Forest plot comparing final knowledge scores between the flipped classroom and control group in observational studies. Forest plot of final test score-01 in observational studies.

Forest plot comparing final knowledge scores between the flipped classroom and control group in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Forest plot of final test scores in RCTs.

 Knowledge Assessment in Studies Reporting a Baseline Knowledge Score

In total, 40 studies with a total of 4542 cases (FC: n=2221; control: n=2321) implemented baseline knowledge assessment at study entry. The results of the meta-analysis presented differences in knowledge scores between the FC and control group at baseline (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.11-0.53; P=.003; Figure 4). The subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference in baseline knowledge between the FC and control group in observational studies (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.03-0.70), while in RCTs, there were no substantial differences (SMD 0.30, 95% CI 0.00-0.59; Figure 4).

The final knowledge scores in studies reporting baseline knowledge assessment were higher in an FC in contrast to the control group overall (SMD 0.97. 95% CI 0.53-1.40; P<.001; Figure 5), as well as in both observational studies and RCTs (SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.22-1.76 and SMD 0.97, 95% CI 0.50-1.44, respectively; Figure 5). The SMD in the overall meta-analysis, as well as in both observational studies and RCTs, indicated a large ES (≥0.8), with the FC group outperforming approximately 75% of individuals in the control group in the overall analysis (Table 1).

Substantial heterogeneity was identified among included studies in both baseline and final analyses (I2=88.7%, τ2=0.41, P<.001 and I2=94.9%, τ2=1.90, P<.001, respectively; Figure S4 in Multimedia Appendix 1). The funnel plot found no evidence for publication bias in the assessment of baseline knowledge (P=.98; Figure S4 in Multimedia Appendix 1), while publication bias was found for the final knowledge assessment (P<.001; Figure S4 in Multimedia Appendix 1). The results of the trim-and-fill analysis presented an unchanged ES for the assessment of baseline knowledge, while an attenuated ES was present for the final knowledge assessment (Table 3).

Among studies that reported baseline knowledge scores, 2 studies were detected as influential in the assessment of baseline knowledge (Table 3; Figure S5 in Multimedia Appendix 1), and 2 highly influential studies were identified in the final knowledge assessment (Table 3; Figure S6 in Multimedia Appendix 1). However, sensitivity analysis presented no significant effect of these studies on the pooled effect estimates in both analyses.

Forest plot for baseline knowledge scores between the flipped classroom and control group according to study design. Forest plot of baseline test scores.

Forest plot comparing final knowledge scores between the flipped classroom and control group in studies reporting baseline knowledge test scores according to study design. Forest plot of final test scores in studies reporting baseline test.

Meta-analysis of studies reporting baseline and final knowledge score (overall effect, influence, and trim-and-fill analysis).

Analysis SMDa (95% CI) 95% prediction interval I2 (95% CI)
Baseline knowledge score as outcome measure
Overall 0.32 (0.11-0.53) −0.99 to 1.63 88.7 (85.5-91.1)
Influential study removedb 0.22 (0.07-0.37) −0.64 to 1.08 85.5 (81.0-88.9)
Trim and fill 0.32 (0.11-0.53) −0.99 to 1.63 88.7 (85.5-91.1)
Final knowledge score as outcome measure (in studies reporting baseline knowledge test)
Overall 0.97 (0.53-1.40) −1.86 to 3.79 94.9 (93.8-95.8)
Influential study removedc 0.73 (0.42-1.04) −1.20 to 2.67 93.8 (92.4-95.0)
Trim and fill 0.64 (0.04-1.24) −3.41 to 4.70 95.7 (94.8-96.4)

aSMD: standardized mean difference.

bAristotle et al [31], 2021; Malik et al [103], 2020.

cAristotle et al [31], 2021; Khojasteh et al [81], 2021.

 Student Satisfaction Assessment

A total of 27 studies with 5842 participants (FC: n=2464; control: n=3378) reported students’ satisfaction scores. The results of the meta-analysis overall effect showed higher students’ satisfaction scores for an FC in contrast to the control group (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.45-1.19; P<.001; Figure 6). There was substantial heterogeneity among the included studies (I2=97.8%, τ2=0.91, P<.001; Figure S7 in Multimedia Appendix 1) and borderline significance for publication bias (P=.051; Figure S7 in Multimedia Appendix 1), and no studies were found to be influential (Figure S8 in Multimedia Appendix 1). However, the results of the trim-and-fill analysis presented an attenuated ES (SMD 0.07, 95% CI −0.40 to 0.54; P=.76). The results of the subgroup meta-analysis showed significant differences in final knowledge scores between the FC and control group in both observational studies and RCTs; however, a lower ES was demonstrated in RCTs (SMD 0.87, 95% CI 0.39-1.35 and SMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.17-1.22, respectively; Figure 6).

The SMD in the overall analysis and in the analysis of observational studies indicated a large ES (≥0.8), with the FC group outperforming approximately 72% of individuals in the control group in the overall analysis. The SMD in the analysis of RCTs indicated a medium ES (0.69), with the FC group outperforming approximately 69% of individuals in the control group (Table 1).

A total of 4 studies with 786 cases (FC: n=404; control: n=382) reported a proportion of students satisfied with the teaching approach. The results of the meta-analysis showed borderline differences in the proportion of satisfied students between the FC and control group (OR 3.1206, 95% CI 0.97-9.99; P=.06; Figure 7). There was substantial heterogeneity among the included studies (I2=79.2%, τ2=1.156, P<.001).

Forest plot comparing students’ satisfaction scores between the flipped classroom and control group according to study design. Forest plot of satisfaction scores.

Forest plot comparing the proportion of students satisfied with the teaching approach between the flipped classroom and control group.

 Metaregression for Final Knowledge Test Scores as the Outcome Measure

Metaregression (Table 4) showed a significant correlation (P=.01) between the course students have undertaken and ES (basic science subjects having a larger ES) but no significant relationship between study design (RCT or observational), knowledge assessment reporting (baseline/final vs final), having same versus different instructors in compared groups, study level (undergraduate vs postgraduate), duration (semester vs block), students’ age, sex, period (before, during, or after the COVID-19 pandemic), and the outcome (P>.05 for all analysis).

Due to a lot of missing data on some predictors within studies, for multivariate modeling, we used only predictors that are reported in a minimal 100 studies; that is, study design (RCT/observational), knowledge assessment (baseline/final vs final), study level (undergraduate vs. postgraduate), duration (semester vs block), subject (clinic/public health vs basic), and period (before, during, or after the COVID-19 pandemic). The results of the multimodel inference coefficients (Table 5) and predictor importance analysis (Figure S9 in Multimedia Appendix 1) confirmed that the most important predictor of FC success is the specificity of the course students have undertaken, indicating that basic science subjects have a larger ES.

Univariate metaregression for final knowledge test scores as the outcome measure.

Variables Studies, n Coefficient (95% CI) P value
Study design (RCTa/observational) 127 0.069 (−0.428 to 0.566) .79
Knowledge assessment (baseline/final vs final) 123 0.076 (−0.419 to 0.573) .76
Instructors (same vs different in compared groups) 41 0.091 (−0.991 to 1.173) .87
Study level (undergraduate vs. postgraduate) 127 −0.003 (−0.569 to 0.563) .99
Duration (semester vs block) 105 −0.025 (−0.530 to 0.481) .92
Age (y) 44 −0.061 (−0.185 to 0.062) .33
Subject (clinic/public health vs basic) 122 −0.609 (−1.091 to −0.126) .01
Sex (female; %) 44 0.001 (−0.018 to 0.020) .92
Period
Before the COVID-19 pandemic (reference) 88 —b —
During the COVID-19 pandemic 19 0.105 (−0.566 to 0.775) .78
After the COVID-19 pandemic 11 0.037 (−0.810 to 0.883) .88

aRCT: randomized controlled trial.

bNot applicable.

Multimodel inference coefficients for final knowledge scores as outcome measure.

Variables Coefficient P value
Study design (RCTa/observational) 0.040 .88
Knowledge assessment (baseline/final vs final) 0.178 .59
Study level (undergraduate vs postgraduate) −0.007 .98
Duration (semester vs block) −0.232 .47
Subject (clinic/public health vs basic) −0.900 .008
Period
Before the COVID-19 pandemic (reference) —b —
During the COVID-19 pandemic 0.184 .62
After the COVID-19 pandemic −0.118 .78

aRCT: randomized controlled trial.

bNot applicable.

 Discussion

In this study, we conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis to appraise the comparative effectiveness of FC instruction in contrast to traditional pedagogical modalities in the context of medical education. The meta-analysis includes 127 studies, of which 37 are RCTs, thus enabling the assessment of a global effect measure of the FC strategy. Overall, we found a substantial positive effect (ES=0.90) of the FC approach. The pooled ES is comparably more pronounced than other fields (mathematics: ES=0.38; science: ES=0.50; science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: ES=0.90), suggesting that medical training is particularly amenable to the FC pedagogical strategy [162].

Most previously published meta-analyses included studies across various disciplines and academic levels, which limited the generalizability of their results to medical education. In addition, many studies from the medical educational context were observational in design, providing lower-quality evidence regarding the true effect of the FC model. In our study, we focused exclusively on studies related to medical education, excluding other disciplines and related fields such as dentistry, pharmacy, and nursing. We expanded the search strategy to include studies from after the COVID-19 pandemic period and presented ESs for the FC model in comparison to traditional learning methods, using high-quality study designs such as RCTs. It is important to note that the COVID-19 pandemic presented both novel challenges and opportunities for integrating technological innovations into medical pedagogy [163]. In our study, standardized ESs between RCT and observational studies were similar across medical disciplines and favored FC methods (observational: SMD 0.90, 95% CI 0.59-1.20, P<.001 and RCT: SMD 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.22, P<.001, respectively). However, between-study heterogeneity remained high irrespective of the type of study. This heterogeneity is likely a consequence of varied methodologies in FC application, partially because there is yet to be a universally accepted pedagogical implementation of the framework. Therefore, a distribution of ESs exists among the study population with differing success rates. Some inconsistently used sources of added heterogeneity could be preclass assessments, differing amounts of technology used, multiple types of handout material used, the use of group-based methods, the use of problem-based learning, the use of simulation exercises, and differences in outcome assessment. For example, the inconsistent use of preclass assessment (eg, quizzing) to maintain student engagement and enforce preparedness introduces added heterogeneity. Preclass assessment is a recognized mediator associated with larger ESs [162].

In addition, studies differed in the amount, quality, and type of technologies involved, some providing only prerecorded lecture material and others incorporating student lecture annotation with review, text-based handout material, or multiple types of student activities [164]. At other times, the scope of the applied FC model was significantly different, with some studies using complete curriculum redesigns and extensive lecture material having to be adapted [97]. In contrast, others (especially in the clinical setting) explored one-time learning opportunities tackling a single clinical concept [28,70]. The FC effect is highest when both quizzes and exercises (problem-based learning) are used together. However, the optimal mediator choice must be tailored to the curriculum at hand [162,165]. Studies also used group-based learning, project assignments, team-based assessment, and other ways to foster engagement [165].

Conceptually, the FC model should strive to replace instructor-driven passive learning with student-centered active learning. Acquiring clinical knowledge and skills requires active learning with an emphasis on problem-based learning, simulation sessions, clinical cases, and group-based learning—all activities where the FC approach is advantageous [166-168]. Given that active learning has proven benefits for knowledge acquisition and application, the question then becomes of identifying the salient features of the FC approach [162,169]. Material availability, self-paced learning, personalized teaching, and student-driven activities are thought to predict better learning outcomes [110,162,165]. The critical question is maintaining student engagement to use class time most effectively. Quizzing students in an FC model at the beginning of class is an external motivator for them to engage with the material before class, suggesting that some of the model’s effectiveness can be attributed to factors enforcing motivation. This preparatory assessment drives students to study in anticipation of the quizzes, leveraging external motivation to ensure they come to class equipped with the necessary knowledge at the cost of increased workload [165,166,170]. Increased performance also reflects increased workload and opportunity to practice. In one study, the number of classes required was doubled in the treatment arm [28]. However, these increases in workload might only scale if applied to part of the school curriculum.

There is also the looming question of outcome measurement. Final assessments could suffer from “teaching to the test” and not reflect any real-world knowledge application [169,171]. For example, FC approaches could increase test performance. However, if the application is not evaluated (through simulations and otherwise), these differences may not reflect the sought outcome—creating high-quality medical professionals.

Differences in learning objectives are the most striking delimiter between basic science and clinical subjects. Clinical subjects should teach students clinical skills in addition to clinical reasoning, compared to basic sciences, which do not have the added logistical hurdle of requiring simulation exams. Consequently, the ES of the flipped model is impacted by the discrepancy between the learning approach and assessment method (skill demonstration or test performance). For example, it would be impractical to assign students to make slides for their preclass assessment if the objective was to master the act of physical examination of the eye [23,93,169]. Curricula that provided students with examination stations and where students had access to simulation-based learning fared better in assessment [60]. In our study, subjects providing basic science skills presented a larger effect of the FC model in contrast to clinical subjects and the public health field. However, in some studies, problem-based learning was an excellent introductory approach to teach clinical skills, and studies that used case-based group discussions have noted increased scores in clinical case assessment [28,70], augmenting the goal of attaining relevant clinical skills [169].

Student engagement can be fostered through group-based discussions to diffuse student responsibility and grow independence. Problem-based learning and simulation can be used when clinical skills are the learning objective to develop clinical reasoning that can be generalized to the real-world setting. Recorded lecture material is vital as its availability makes it easy for self-paced learning and review for both physical examination and medical procedures [164]. However, the successful implementation of the FC approach requires careful planning, along with both technical and pedagogical support for instructors. Clearly defined learning objectives and aligning classroom activities with those objectives are critical for effective implementation [162]. One of the main challenges for instructors is the development of interactive content and structuring of lectures for independent student learning. These tasks demand additional time, technical resources, and a certain level of digital literacy from the teaching staff. Students may also face difficulties. Traditional laboratories and clinical practice offer direct sensory engagement and spontaneous learning opportunities through unforeseen situations—experiences that are difficult to replicate in a digital format. The absence of such practical, hands-on learning can weaken the connection between theoretical knowledge and real-world application. In addition, unequal access to digital resources due to unreliable internet connections or lack of appropriate equipment can exacerbate existing educational inequalities among students. This is why institutional efforts are also needed to ensure that students have equitable access to all necessary educational resources.

Student evaluations are commonly used to assess class and instructor quality. Indeed, student feedback showed significant satisfaction with FC learning models compared to traditional methods [67,156,159,172,173]. In both clinical and preclinical contexts, students expressed high levels of satisfaction, with flipped learning being the majority preferred strategy. Therefore, assessing student perception and its impact on teaching course satisfaction should be weighed when considering teaching reform. Importantly, current research demonstrates that student satisfaction may explain a minimal portion of learning variation [174]. There are concerns that student evaluations exhibit a systematic bias, making them poor markers of teaching effectiveness [175,176]. Some reports have found that despite the greater effectiveness of the flipped model, student satisfaction remained the same or even decreased [177,178]. This inconsistent effect of satisfaction could indicate that, for some learning objectives, the workload needed to achieve a better outcome might not align with students’ perceptions. The level of satisfaction could be related to factors irrelevant to the set objective [174,176,179]. The FC model tends to increase immediate workload in exchange for delayed but better outcomes. Further curricula optimization would entail differentiating excellent and bad workloads, which impacts learning and student satisfaction [170,180,181]. Allowing students to learn at their own pace and providing more opportunities for hands-on and engaging activities during class seem like good pedagogical tools [60,62,109,162]. Finally, the effectiveness of incorporating active learning seems to have the greatest impact on the overall effects of an FC [163].

Limitations

The findings of this study should be interpreted with caution because of the high methodological diversity related to study design and outcome measures, as well as statistical heterogeneity. Incomplete reporting was evident in the assessed literature; some studies may have reported only major findings, making it difficult to evaluate their methodology or to reuse their data. Our meta-analysis did not include conference papers, dissertations, and papers on languages other than English, which may have introduced a selection bias.

 Conclusions

This study has the potential to advance medical education by exploring innovative, technology-enhanced teaching methodologies that improve learning outcomes. Its findings provide valuable insights for educators, curriculum developers, and policy makers regarding the efficacy of the FC model in medical education. The FC approach has been shown to promote better knowledge acquisition and higher student satisfaction compared to traditional methods, supporting its broader integration into medical school curricula, particularly for basic science subjects. However, successful implementation requires careful consideration of factors such as resource availability, faculty preparedness, and student preferences. To promote the FC model in low-resource settings, institutions should leverage free digital tools and open educational resources; prioritize low-cost, high-impact in-class strategies such as peer instruction and group discussions; and maximize existing infrastructure through community collaboration. In addition, future research should explore the integration of technology-assisted teaching tools, including artificial intelligence and adaptive learning platforms, to further enhance the effectiveness and scalability of FC methodologies in medical education.

Supplementary table and figures.

PRISMA checklist.

 Abbreviations ES

effect size

 FC

flipped classroom

 IC

information and communication

 PRISMA

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

 RCT

randomized controlled trial

 SMD

standardized mean difference

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia (grant 200110) and the University of East Sarajevo, Faculty of Medicine Foca, RS, BiH (01-3-36).

None declared.

 Haleem A Javaid M Qadri MA Suman R Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: a review Sustain Oper Comput 2022 3 275 85 10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004 Strelan P Osborn A Palmer E The flipped classroom: a meta-analysis of effects on student performance across disciplines and education levels Educ Res Rev 2020 06 30 100314 10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100314 Means B Toyama Y Murphy R Baki M The effectiveness of online and blended learning: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature Teach Coll Rec 2013 03 01 115 3 1 47 10.1177/016146811311500307 Luscombe C Montgomery J Exploring medical student learning in the large group teaching environment: examining current practice to inform curricular development BMC Med Educ 2016 07 19 16 1 184 10.1186/s12909-016-0698-x 27435852 10.1186/s12909-016-0698-x PMC4950633 Chen F Lui AM Martinelli SM A systematic review of the effectiveness of flipped classrooms in medical education Med Educ 2017 06 09 51 6 585 97 10.1111/medu.13272 28488303 Prober CG Heath C Lecture halls without lectures--a proposal for medical education N Engl J Med 2012 05 03 366 18 1657 9 10.1056/NEJMp1202451 22551125 Akçayır G Akçayır M The flipped classroom: a review of its advantages and challenges Comput Educ 2018 11 126 334 45 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021 Abeysekera L Dawson P Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: definition, rationale and a call for research High Educ Res Dev 2014 08 14 34 1 1 14 10.1080/07294360.2014.934336 Pereira JA Pleguezuelos E Merí A Molina-Ros A Molina-Tomás MC Masdeu C Effectiveness of using blended learning strategies for teaching and learning human anatomy Med Educ 2007 02 41 2 189 95 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02672.x 17269953 MED2672 Morton CE Saleh SN Smith SF Hemani A Ameen A Bennie TD Toro-Troconis M Blended learning: how can we optimise undergraduate student engagement? BMC Med Educ 2016 08 04 16 1 195 10.1186/s12909-016-0716-z 27492157 10.1186/s12909-016-0716-z PMC4973547 Milic NM Trajkovic GZ Bukumiric ZM Cirkovic A Nikolic IM Milin JS Milic NV Savic MD Corac AM Marinkovic JM Stanisavljevic DM Improving education in medical statistics: implementing a blended learning model in the existing curriculum PLoS One 2016 2 9 11 2 e0148882 10.1371/journal.pone.0148882 26859832 PONE-D-15-46907 PMC4747556 Milic N Masic S Bjegovic-Mikanovic V Trajkovic G Marinkovic J Milin-Lazovic J Bukumiric Z Savic M Cirkovic A Gajic M Stanisavljevic D Blended learning is an effective strategy for acquiring competence in public health biostatistics Int J Public Health 2018 04 3 63 3 421 8 10.1007/s00038-017-1039-5 28975369 10.1007/s00038-017-1039-5 Chen KS Monrouxe L Lu YH Jenq CC Chang YJ Chang YC Chai PY Academic outcomes of flipped classroom learning: a meta-analysis Med Educ 2018 06 25 52 9 910 24 10.1111/medu.13616 29943399 PMC6120558 Hew KF Lo CK Flipped classroom improves student learning in health professions education: a meta-analysis BMC Med Educ 2018 03 15 18 1 38 10.1186/s12909-018-1144-z 29544495 10.1186/s12909-018-1144-z PMC5855972 O'Doherty D Dromey M Lougheed J Hannigan A Last J McGrath D Barriers and solutions to online learning in medical education - an integrative review BMC Med Educ 2018 06 07 18 1 130 10.1186/s12909-018-1240-0 29880045 10.1186/s12909-018-1240-0 PMC5992716 Kapur M Hattie J Grossman I Sinha T Fail, flip, fix, and feed – rethinking flipped learning: a review of meta-analyses and a subsequent meta-analysis Front Educ 2022 9 26 7 10.3389/feduc.2022.956416 Divjak B Rienties B Iniesto F Vondra P Žižak M Flipped classrooms in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings and future research recommendations Int J Educ Technol High Educ 2022 02 28 19 1 9 10.1186/s41239-021-00316-4 35252548 316 PMC8882392 Liberati A Altman DG Tetzlaff J Mulrow C Gøtzsche PC Ioannidis JP Clarke M Devereaux PJ Kleijnen J Moher D The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration PLoS Med 2009 07 21 6 7 e1000100 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 19621070 PMC2707010 Stroup DF Berlin JA Morton SC Olkin I Williamson GD Rennie D Moher D Becker BJ Sipe TA Thacker SB Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group JAMA 2000 04 19 283 15 2008 12 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 10789670 jst00003 GetData Graph Digitizer homepage GetData Graph Digitizer 2025-06-08 https://getdata-graph-digitizer.com/ Abali EE Rashid H Copeland HL Calt M DeMaio R Patel J Schild S Phadtare S Chai L Ullo M Shaping perceptions of basic science education by utilizing real patient encounters Med Sci Educ 2020 04 06 30 2 791 800 10.1007/s40670-020-00951-y Afzal S Masroor I Flipped classroom model for teaching undergraduate students in radiology J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2019 11 01 29 11 1083 6 10.29271/jcpsp.2019.11.1083 31659967 040579197 Alabiad CR Moore KJ Green DP Kofoed M Mechaber AJ Karp CL The flipped classroom: an innovative approach to medical education in ophthalmology J Acad Ophthalmol (2017) 2020 07 09 12 2 e96 103 10.1055/s-0040-1713681 33564741 PMC7869843 Algarni A Biomedical students' self-efficacy and academic performance by gender in a flipped learning haematology course BMC Med Educ 2024 04 24 24 1 443 10.1186/s12909-024-05421-2 38658898 10.1186/s12909-024-05421-2 PMC11040756 Allenbaugh J Spagnoletti C Berlacher K Effects of a flipped classroom curriculum on inpatient cardiology resident education J Grad Med Educ 2019 04 11 2 196 201 10.4300/JGME-D-18-00543.1 31024653 JGME-D-18-00543 PMC6476082 Alnahdi M Agha S Khan MA Almansour M The flipped classroom model: exploring the effect on the knowledge retention of medical students J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2022 09 27 34 4 759 65 10.55519/jamc-04-10957 Althubaiti A Althubaiti SM Flipping the online classroom to teach statistical data analysis software: a quasi-experimental study SAGE Open 2024 03 05 14 1 10.1177/21582440241235022 Anas S Kyrou I Rand-Weaver M Karteris E The effect of online and in-person team-based learning (TBL) on undergraduate endocrinology teaching during COVID-19 pandemic BMC Med Educ 2022 02 22 22 1 120 10.1186/s12909-022-03173-5 35193577 10.1186/s12909-022-03173-5 PMC8863392 Angadi NB Kavi A Shetty K Hashilkar NK Effectiveness of flipped classroom as a teaching-learning method among undergraduate medical students - an interventional study J Educ Health Promot 2019 8 1 211 10.4103/jehp.jehp_163_19 31807601 JEHP-8-211 PMC6852382 Arathi MS Devi GD Sharath K Johnson WM Bhandari A Effectiveness of flipped class room approach as a teaching methodology in anatomy for early clinical exposure modules for first-year medical students – an interventional study Int J Anat Res 2022 01 05 10 1 8255 61 10.16965/ijar.2021.197 Aristotle S Subramanian S Jayakumar S Effectiveness of flipped classroom model in teaching histology for first-year MBBS students based on competency-based blended learning: an interventional study J Educ Health Promot 2021 10 152 10.4103/jehp.jehp_467_20 34222527 JEHP-10-152 PMC8224505 Arya V Gehlawat VK Rana R Kaushik J Flipped classroom versus traditional lecture in training undergraduates in pediatric epilepsy J Family Med Prim Care 2020 09 9 9 4805 8 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_816_20 33209804 JFMPC-9-4805 PMC7652203 Avakyan EI Taylor DC The effect of flipped learning on students' basic psychological needs and its association with self-esteem BMC Med Educ 2024 10 11 24 1 1127 10.1186/s12909-024-06113-7 39390555 10.1186/s12909-024-06113-7 PMC11468401 Bawaneh AK Moumene AB Flipping the classroom for optimizing undergraduate students’ motivation and understanding of medical physics concepts Eurasia J Math Sci Tech Ed 2020 16 11 em1899 10.29333/ejmste/8561 Belfi LM Bartolotta RJ Giambrone AE Davi C Min RJ "Flipping" the introductory clerkship in radiology: impact on medical student performance and perceptions Acad Radiol 2015 06 22 6 794 801 10.1016/j.acra.2014.11.003 25592027 S1076-6332(14)00403-6 Beom JH Kim JH Chung HS Kim SM Ko DR Cho J Flipped-classroom training in advanced cardiopulmonary life support PLoS One 2018 9 5 13 9 e0203114 10.1371/journal.pone.0203114 30183739 PONE-D-17-38327 PMC6124753 Bergmans E Billington A Thies KC From tradition to innovation: a comparison of the traditional 4-step approach versus a blended learning modification for technical skills teaching Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2023 11 14 31 1 80 10.1186/s13049-023-01127-4 37964361 10.1186/s13049-023-01127-4 PMC10644658 Bhai S Poustinchian B The flipped classroom: a novel approach to physical examination skills for osteopathic medical students J Osteopath Med 2021 02 26 121 5 475 81 10.1515/jom-2020-0198 33694343 jom-2020-0198 Bhavsar MH Javia HN Mehta SJ Flipped classroom versus traditional didactic classroom in medical teaching: a comparative study Cureus 2022 03 14 3 e23657 10.7759/cureus.23657 35510025 PMC9060739 Bhide A Singh S Pujitha K Vani P A study of impact of flipped classroom on student educational experience in comparison with didactic lecture in topics classified based on Bloom’s taxonomy Biomedicine 2022 03 05 42 1 154 9 10.51248/.v42i1.660 Homsanit M Comparison of academic outcomes of epidemiology and biostatistics course between traditional lecture and flipped classroom blended approach in 2nd year medical students: a retrospective cohort study Siriraj Med J 2019 03 22 71 2 123 6 10.33192/Smj.2019.19 Bouwmeester RA de Kleijn RA van den Berg IE ten Cate OT van Rijen HV Westerveld HE Flipping the medical classroom: effect on workload, interactivity, motivation and retention of knowledge Comput Educ 2019 10 139 118 28 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.002 Boysen-Osborn M Anderson CL Navarro R Yanuck J Strom S McCoy CE Youm J Ypma-Wong MF Langdorf MI Flipping the advanced cardiac life support classroom with team-based learning: comparison of cognitive testing performance for medical students at the University of California, Irvine, United States J Educ Eval Health Prof 2016 02 18 13 11 10.3352/jeehp.2016.13.11 26893399 jeehp.2016.13.11 PMC4789594 Burak KW Raman M Paget M Busche K Coderre S McLaughlin K A mixed methods study on the effect of flipping the undergraduate medical classroom Educ Sci 2017 11 14 7 4 83 10.3390/educsci7040083 Cai L Li YL Hu XY Li R Implementation of flipped classroom combined with case-based learning: a promising and effective teaching modality in undergraduate pathology education Medicine (Baltimore) 2022 02 04 101 5 e28782 10.1097/MD.0000000000028782 35119043 00005792-202202040-00046 PMC8812661 Cao YX Xia SL Zhu ZY Zeng FR Li HN Zhang TT Liu YJ Exploring lemology teaching with "internet plus" flipped classroom pedagogy BMC Med Educ 2023 05 16 23 1 341 10.1186/s12909-023-04309-x 37193976 10.1186/s12909-023-04309-x PMC10187492 Carrick FR Abdulrahman M Hankir A Zayaruzny M Najem K Lungchukiet P Edwards RA Randomized controlled study of a remote flipped classroom neuro-otology curriculum Front Neurol 2017 07 24 8 349 10.3389/fneur.2017.00349 28790966 PMC5523077 Cheng X Ka Ho Lee K Chang EY Yang X The "flipped classroom" approach: stimulating positive learning attitudes and improving mastery of histology among medical students Anat Sci Educ 2017 07 04 10 4 317 27 10.1002/ase.1664 28199052 Chick RC Adams AM Peace KM Kemp Bohan PM Schwantes IR Clifton GT Vicente D Propper B Newhook T Grubbs EG Bednarski BK Vreeland TJ Using the flipped classroom model in surgical education: efficacy and trainee perception J Surg Educ 2021 11 78 6 1803 7 10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.05.008 34210646 S1931-7204(21)00126-4 Chiu HY Kang YN Wang WL Huang HC Wu CC Hsu W Tong YS Wei PL The effectiveness of a simulation-based flipped classroom in the acquisition of laparoscopic suturing skills in medical students-a pilot study J Surg Educ 2018 03 75 2 326 32 10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.07.007 28734948 S1931-7204(17)30341-0 Chowdhury TA Khan H Druce MR Drake WM Rajakariar R Thuraisingham R Dobbie H Parvanta L Chinegwundoh F Almushatat A Warrens A Alstead EM Flipped learning: turning medical education upside down Future Healthc J 2019 10 6 3 192 5 10.7861/fhj.2018-0017 31660525 S2514-6645(24)00095-X PMC6798025 Ding C Li S Chen B Effectiveness of flipped classroom combined with team-, case-, lecture- and evidence-based learning on ophthalmology teaching for eight-year program students BMC Med Educ 2019 11 14 19 1 419 10.1186/s12909-019-1861-y 31727043 10.1186/s12909-019-1861-y PMC6854635 El Sadik A Al Abdulmonem W Improvement in student performance and perceptions through a flipped anatomy classroom: shifting from passive traditional to active blended learning Anat Sci Educ 2021 07 28 14 4 482 90 10.1002/ase.2015 32881423 El-Ashkar A Aboregela A Abdelazim A Metwally A Flipped classroom as a novel teaching tool for practical parasitology Parasitologists United J 2022 04 01 15 1 110 6 10.21608/PUJ.2022.126500.1159 Evans KH Thompson AC O'Brien C Bryant M Basaviah P Prober C Popat RA An innovative blended preclinical curriculum in clinical epidemiology and biostatistics: impact on student satisfaction and performance Acad Med 2016 05 91 5 696 700 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001085 26796089 Fakhoury HM A Fatoum H Aldeiry MA Alahmad H Enabi J Kayali S Bawahab Y Masuadi EM Obeidat A Lumsden CJ Flipping a biochemistry class within a medical curriculum: impacts on perception, engagement, and attainment Biochem Mol Biol Educ 2021 07 27 49 4 625 32 10.1002/bmb.21521 33904634 Feng Y Zhao B Zheng J Fu Y Jiang Y Online flipped classroom with team-based learning promoted learning activity in a clinical laboratory immunology class: response to the COVID-19 pandemic BMC Med Educ 2022 12 03 22 1 836 10.1186/s12909-022-03917-3 36463210 10.1186/s12909-022-03917-3 PMC9719624 Galway LP Corbett KK Takaro TK Tairyan K Frank E A novel integration of online and flipped classroom instructional models in public health higher education BMC Med Educ 2014 08 29 14 1 181 10.1186/1472-6920-14-181 25169853 1472-6920-14-181 PMC4167261 Gillispie V Using the flipped classroom to bridge the gap to generation Y Ochsner J 2016 16 1 32 6 27046401 PMC4795497 Gong J Ruan M Yang W Peng M Wang Z Ouyang L Yang G Application of blended learning approach in clinical skills to stimulate active learning attitudes and improve clinical practice among medical students PeerJ 2021 9 e11690 10.7717/peerj.11690 34221742 11690 PMC8236236 Graham KL Cohen A Reynolds EE Huang GC Effect of a flipped classroom on knowledge acquisition and retention in an internal medicine residency program J Grad Med Educ 2019 02 11 1 92 7 10.4300/JGME-D-18-00536.1 30805104 JGME-D-18-00536R1 PMC6375314 Granero Lucchetti AL Ezequiel OD Oliveira IN Moreira-Almeida A Lucchetti G Using traditional or flipped classrooms to teach “geriatrics and gerontology”? Investigating the impact of active learning on medical students’ competences Med Teach 2018 01 21 40 12 1248 56 10.1080/0142159x.2018.1426837 Grant LL Opperman MJ Schiller B Chastain J Richardson JD Eckel C Plawecki MH Medical student engagement in a virtual learning environment positively correlates with course performance and satisfaction in psychiatry Med Sci Educ 2021 06 12 31 3 1133 40 10.1007/s40670-021-01287-x 33868773 1287 PMC8041389 Gutiérrez-González R Zamarron A Royuela A Rodriguez-Boto G Flipped classroom applied to neurosurgery in undergraduate medical education BMC Med Educ 2023 03 20 23 1 170 10.1186/s12909-023-04158-8 36935485 10.1186/s12909-023-04158-8 PMC10026516 Heitmann H Fischer E Wagner P Pötter D Gartmeier M Schmidt-Graf F Flipping the classroom in neurological bedside teaching: a prospective controlled study BMC Med Educ 2023 03 15 23 1 164 10.1186/s12909-023-04150-2 36922824 10.1186/s12909-023-04150-2 PMC10016155 Heitz C Prusakowski M Willis G Franck C Does the concept of the "flipped classroom" extend to the emergency medicine clinical clerkship? West J Emerg Med 2015 11 12 16 6 851 5 10.5811/westjem.2015.9.27256 26594277 wjem-16-851 PMC4651581 Hernández-Guerra M Quintero E Morales-Arráez DE Carrillo-Pallarés A Nicolás-Pérez D Carrillo-Palau M Gimeno-García A González-Alayón C Alarcón O Otón-Nieto E Díaz-Luis H Hernández-Siverio N Martín-Malagón A Arteaga-González I Bravo-Gutiérrez A Lorenzo-Rocha M Jordán-Balanza J Sánchez-González JM Barrera-Gómez M Reid A Marina N Comparison of flipped learning and traditional lecture method for teaching digestive system diseases in undergraduate medicine: a prospective non-randomized controlled trial Med Teach 2021 01 27 43 4 463 71 10.1080/0142159x.2020.1867312 Herrero JI Quiroga J Flipped classroom improves results in pathophysiology learning: results of a nonrandomized controlled study Adv Physiol Educ 2020 09 01 44 3 370 5 10.1152/advan.00153.2019 32628523 Hsu SD Chen CJ Chang WK Hu YJ An investigation of the outcomes of PGY students' cognition of and persistent behavior in learning through the intervention of the flipped classroom in Taiwan PLoS One 2016 12 2 11 12 e0167598 10.1371/journal.pone.0167598 27911937 PONE-D-16-33192 PMC5135136 Hu X Zhang H Song Y Wu C Yang Q Shi Z Zhang X Chen W Implementation of flipped classroom combined with problem-based learning: an approach to promote learning about hyperthyroidism in the endocrinology internship BMC Med Educ 2019 07 30 19 1 290 10.1186/s12909-019-1714-8 31362729 10.1186/s12909-019-1714-8 PMC6668058 Hu B Wang L Wu J Zhu L Chen Z A combination of case-based learning with flipped classroom improved performance of medical students in nephrology bedside teaching BMC Med Educ 2024 09 12 24 1 995 10.1186/s12909-024-05973-3 39266995 10.1186/s12909-024-05973-3 PMC11396661 Huang HL Chou CP Leu S You HL Tiao MM Chen CH Effects of a quasi-experimental study of using flipped classroom approach to teach evidence-based medicine to medical technology students BMC Med Educ 2020 01 31 20 1 31 10.1186/s12909-020-1946-7 32005227 10.1186/s12909-020-1946-7 PMC6995213 Ilic D Nordin RB Glasziou P Tilson JK Villanueva E A randomised controlled trial of a blended learning education intervention for teaching evidence-based medicine BMC Med Educ 2015 03 10 15 1 39 10.1186/s12909-015-0321-6 25884717 10.1186/s12909-015-0321-6 PMC4358913 Ito A Isohama Y Watanabe K Comparison of flipped and traditional lecture-based classrooms for Kampo (traditional Japanese medicine) education in a medical school Int J Educ Res Open 2022 3 100156 10.1016/j.ijedro.2022.100156 Jalali A Jeong D Sutherland S Implementing a competency-based approach to anatomy teaching: beginning with the end in mind J Med Educ Curric Dev 2020 02 18 7 2382120520907899 10.1177/2382120520907899 32128447 10.1177_2382120520907899 PMC7031789 Ji M Luo Z Feng D Xiang Y Xu J Short- and long-term influences of flipped classroom teaching in physiology course on medical students' learning effectiveness Front Public Health 2022 3 28 10 835810 10.3389/fpubh.2022.835810 35419334 PMC8995769 Jumaa MI Hanafy SM Farhat KH Arafa MA Farahat MF Student performance and perceptions of flipped classrooms and small group discussions as teaching tools in practical anatomy Cureus 2024 09 16 9 e68459 10.7759/cureus.68459 39360057 PMC11446484 Jung H An J Park KH Analysis of satisfaction and academic achievement of medical students in a flipped class Korean J Med Educ 2018 06 30 2 101 7 10.3946/kjme.2018.85 29860776 kjme.2018.85 PMC5990896 Kasat P Deshmukh V Muthiyan GT Sontakke B Sorte SR Tarnekar AM The role of the flipped classroom method in short-term and long-term retention among undergraduate medical students of anatomy Cureus 2023 09 15 9 e45021 10.7759/cureus.45021 37829972 PMC10566247 Ketterer B Childers JW Arnold RM An innovative application of online learning for hospice education in medicine trainees J Palliat Med 2021 06 01 24 6 919 23 10.1089/jpm.2020.0746 33646055 Khojasteh L Hosseini SA Nasiri E The impact of mediated learning on the academic writing performance of medical students in flipped and traditional classrooms: scaffolding techniques Res Pract Technol Enhanc Learn 2021 06 30 16 1 17 10.1186/s41039-021-00165-9 34226839 165 PMC8243063 King AM Mayer C Barrie M Greenberger S Way DP Replacing lectures with small groups: the impact of flipping the residency conference day West J Emerg Med 2018 01 18 19 1 11 7 10.5811/westjem.2017.10.35235 29383050 wjem-19-11 PMC5785176 Kiviniemi MT Effects of a blended learning approach on student outcomes in a graduate-level public health course BMC Med Educ 2014 03 11 14 1 47 10.1186/1472-6920-14-47 24612923 1472-6920-14-47 PMC3975233 Kolahdouzan M Mahmoudieh M Rasti M Omid A Rostami A Yamani N The effect of case-based teaching and flipped classroom methods in comparison with lecture method on learning and satisfaction of internship students in surgery J Educ Health Promot 2020 9 1 256 10.4103/jehp.jehp_237_19 33225000 JEHP-9-256 PMC7657411 Kong F Li Z Su X Zhuang W Assessment of a flipped classroom model based on microlectures in a medical molecular biology course J Biol Educ 2020 08 26 56 4 408 16 10.1080/00219266.2020.1808513 Kühl SJ Toberer M Keis O Tolks D Fischer MR Kühl M Concept and benefits of the Inverted Classroom method for a competency-based biochemistry course in the pre-clinical stage of a human medicine course of studies GMS J Med Educ 2017 34 3 Doc31 10.3205/zma001108 28890922 zma001108 PMC5569983 Langdorf MI Anderson CL Navarro RE Strom S McCoy CE Youm J Ypma-Wong MF Comparing the results of written testing for advanced cardiac life support teaching using team-based learning and the "flipped classroom" strategy Cureus 2018 05 03 10 5 e2574 10.7759/cureus.2574 30013860 PMC6039154 Lewis CE Chen DC Relan A Implementation of a flipped classroom approach to promote active learning in the third-year surgery clerkship Am J Surg 2018 02 215 2 298 303 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.08.050 29169824 S0002-9610(17)30687-6 Li Y Tang XF Cheng H Application of a flipped classroom teaching model based on micro-videos in the standardized training of dermatological residents in China Front Med (Lausanne) 2023 10 13 10 1250168 10.3389/fmed.2023.1250168 37901394 PMC10613050 Li Y Cao L Zhang H Pang W Sun Y Zhang Z Application of flipped classroom combined with case-based learning in Introduction to Environmental Health Science Front Public Health 2023 9 15 11 1264843 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1264843 37790715 PMC10542574 Liao W He J Yang C Qi S Chen G Ding C Application of a new multi-element integrated teaching mode based on bite-sized teaching, flipped classroom, and MOOC in clinical teaching of obstetrics and gynaecology BMC Med Educ 2023 11 01 23 1 820 10.1186/s12909-023-04494-9 37915012 10.1186/s12909-023-04494-9 PMC10621109 Liebert CA Lin DT Mazer LM Bereknyei S Lau JN Effectiveness of the Surgery Core Clerkship Flipped Classroom: a prospective cohort trial Am J Surg 2016 02 211 2 451 7.e1 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.10.004 26687962 S0002-9610(15)00604-2 Lin Y Zhu Y Chen C Wang W Chen T Li T Li Y Liu B Lian Y Lu L Zou Y Liu Y Facing the challenges in ophthalmology clerkship teaching: is flipped classroom the answer? PLoS One 2017 4 6 12 4 e0174829 10.1371/journal.pone.0174829 28384167 PONE-D-17-00167 PMC5383227 Liu S Li Y Wang X Zhang X Wang R Research on the effect of big data flipped classroom combined with scenario simulation teaching: based on clinical practice of medical students Wireless Commun Mobile Comput 2021 09 24 2021 1 447 10.1155/2021/7107447 Liu K Liu S Ma Y Jiang J Liu Z Wan Y Comparison of blended learning and traditional lecture method on learning outcomes in the evidence-based medicine course: a comparative study BMC Med Educ 2024 06 20 24 1 680 10.1186/s12909-024-05659-w 38902673 10.1186/s12909-024-05659-w PMC11188531 Liu Q Tang XJ Chen XK Chen L Flipped classroom based on outcomes-based education improves student engagement and clinical analysis competence in undergraduates ophthalmology clerkship Adv Med Educ Pract 2024 06 Volume 15 599 607 10.2147/amep.s464898 Łopińska M Gielecki JS Żurada A Flipped spotters learning model: an innovative student activity-based strategy. A preparation tool for anatomy practical examinations in medical education Anat Sci Educ 2022 08 15 5 886 97 10.1002/ase.2132 34398534 Lu RY Yanovitch T Enyedi L Gandhi N Gearinger M de Alba Campomanes AG Cavuoto KM Gray M Kemp PS Silverstein E Loh AR Ding L Cabrera MT The flipped-classroom approach to teaching horizontal strabismus in ophthalmology residency: a multicentered randomized controlled study J AAPOS 2021 06 25 3 137.e1 .e6 10.1016/j.jaapos.2021.01.008 34082113 S1091-8531(21)00135-X PMC8337440 Lu C Xu J Cao Y Zhang Y Liu X Wen H Yan Y Wang J Cai M Zhu H Examining the effects of student-centered flipped classroom in physiology education BMC Med Educ 2023 04 12 23 1 233 10.1186/s12909-023-04166-8 37046277 10.1186/s12909-023-04166-8 PMC10091629 Lucardie AT Busari JO The flipped classroom as a pedagogical tool for leadership development in postgraduate medical education Educ Sci 2017 06 13 7 2 63 10.3390/educsci7020063 Ma X Luo Y Zhang L Wang J Liang Y Yu H Wu Y Tan J Cao M A trial and perceptions assessment of APP-based flipped classroom teaching model for medical students in learning immunology in China Educ Sci 2018 04 02 8 2 45 10.3390/educsci8020045 Malhotra AS Bhagat A Flipped classroom for undergraduate medical students in India: are we ready for it? Adv Physiol Educ 2023 12 01 47 4 694 8 10.1152/advan.00200.2022 37471219 Malik SS Yasmeen R Khan RA A randomized controlled study to evaluate the effect of flipped classroom relative to a traditional demonstration method on learning of procedural skills in dermatology residents J Pak Med Assoc 2020 09 70 9 1547 53 10.5455/JPMA.27173 33040106 10104 Marchalot A Dureuil B Veber B Fellahi J Hanouz JL Dupont H Lorne E Gerard JL Compère V Effectiveness of a blended learning course and flipped classroom in first year anaesthesia training Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med 2018 10 37 5 411 5 10.1016/j.accpm.2017.10.008 29175318 S2352-5568(17)30113-3 Marshall AM Conroy ZE Effective and time-efficient implementation of a flipped-classroom in preclinical medical education Med Sci Educ 2022 08 18 32 4 811 7 10.1007/s40670-022-01572-3 36035527 1572 PMC9411333 Martinelli SM Chen F DiLorenzo AN Mayer DC Fairbanks S Moran K Ku C Mitchell JD Bowe EA Royal KD Hendrickse A VanDyke K Trawicki MC Rankin D Guldan GJ Hand W Gallagher C Jacob Z Zvara DA McEvoy MD Schell RM Results of a flipped classroom teaching approach in anesthesiology residents J Grad Med Educ 2017 08 9 4 485 90 10.4300/JGME-D-17-00128.1 28824763 Customer: JGME-D-17-00128R1 PMC5559245 Mengesha AK Ayele HS Misker MF Beyna AT Assessing the effectiveness of flipped classroom teaching-learning method among undergraduate medical students at gondar university, college of medicine and health sciences: an interventional study BMC Med Educ 2024 10 07 24 1 1108 10.1186/s12909-024-06105-7 39375705 10.1186/s12909-024-06105-7 PMC11460021 Moll-Khosrawi P Zöllner C Cencin N Schulte-Uentrop L Flipped learning enhances non-technical skill performance in simulation-based education: a randomised controlled trial BMC Med Educ 2021 06 22 21 1 353 10.1186/s12909-021-02766-w 34158030 10.1186/s12909-021-02766-w PMC8220780 Moraros J Islam A Yu S Banow R Schindelka B Flipping for success: evaluating the effectiveness of a novel teaching approach in a graduate level setting BMC Med Educ 2015 02 28 15 1 27 10.1186/s12909-015-0317-2 25884508 10.1186/s12909-015-0317-2 PMC4363198 Morton DA Colbert-Getz JM Measuring the impact of the flipped anatomy classroom: the importance of categorizing an assessment by Bloom's taxonomy Anat Sci Educ 2017 03 18 10 2 170 5 10.1002/ase.1635 27427860 Moskowitz HS Hsueh WD Integrative resident education curriculum to adapt to the modern otolaryngology trainee Laryngoscope 2020 03 17 130 3 615 21 10.1002/lary.28069 31099417 Nanjundaiah K Anuradha HV Comparison of flipped classroom versus traditional didactic lectures among medical students: a mixed method study Natl J Clin Anat 2024 13 1 41 4 10.4103/NJCA.NJCA_184_23 Newman JR Fink J Clough LA Johnston S Internal medicine clerkship ID curriculum flip: will they prefer to pre-learn? Med Sci Educ 2021 12 01 31 6 1751 5 10.1007/s40670-021-01384-x 34490068 1384 PMC8409700 Nourinezhad S Hadipourfard E Bavali M The effect of audio-visual feedback on writing components and writing performance of medical university students in two different modes of instruction, flipped and traditional Cogent Educ 2021 09 17 8 1 10.1080/2331186x.2021.1978621 O'Connor EE Fried J McNulty N Shah P Hogg JP Lewis P Zeffiro T Agarwal V Reddy S Flipping radiology education right side up Acad Radiol 2016 07 23 7 810 22 10.1016/j.acra.2016.02.011 27066755 S1076-6332(16)00113-6 Ohlenburg H Arnemann PH Hessler M Görlich D Zarbock A Friederichs H Flipped classroom: improved team performance during resuscitation training through interactive pre-course content - a cluster-randomised controlled study BMC Med Educ 2024 04 26 24 1 459 10.1186/s12909-024-05438-7 38671434 10.1186/s12909-024-05438-7 PMC11046966 Paralikar S Shah CJ Joshi A Kathrotia R Acquisition of higher-order cognitive skills (HOCS) using the flipped classroom model: a quasi-experimental study Cureus 2022 04 14 4 e24249 10.7759/cureus.24249 35602838 PMC9116902 Peterson J Louden DT Gribben V Blankenburg R Teaching residents clinical practice guidelines using a flipped classroom model MedEdPORTAL 2017 03 06 13 10548 10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10548 30800750 PMC6342164 Pontius LN Hooten J Lesesky E Rao C Nicholas M Bialas R Liu B Green CL Atwater AR A comparison of knowledge acquisition and perceived efficacy of a traditional vs flipped classroom-based dermatology residency curriculum Cutis 2020 01 105 1 36 9 32074145 Porcaro PA Jackson DE McLaughlin PM O’Malley CJ Curriculum design of a flipped classroom to enhance haematology learning J Sci Educ Technol 2016 1 20 25 3 345 57 10.1007/s10956-015-9599-8 Prabhavathi K KalyaniPraba P Rohini P Selvi K Saravanan A Flipped classroom as an effective educational tool in teaching physiology for first-year undergraduate medical students J Educ Health Promot 2024 13 283 10.4103/jehp.jehp_1854_23 39310021 JEHP-13-283 PMC11414885 Prabhu R Prabhu G Flipped pedagogical approach in teaching skeletal muscle physiology for undergraduate medical students Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 2022 10 10 66 211 7 10.25259/IJPP_63_2021 Qian Q Yan Y Xue F Lin J Zhang F Zhao J Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) learning online: a flipped classroom based on micro-learning combined with case-based learning in undergraduate medical students Adv Med Educ Pract 2021 07 Volume 12 835 42 10.2147/amep.s294980 Qutob H Effect of flipped classroom approach in the teaching of a hematology course PLoS One 2022 4 21 17 4 e0267096 10.1371/journal.pone.0267096 35446895 PONE-D-21-37375 PMC9022851 Rathner JA Schier MA The impact of flipped classroom andragogy on student assessment performance and perception of learning experience in two advanced physiology subjects Adv Physiol Educ 2020 03 01 44 1 80 92 10.1152/advan.00125.2019 32057266 Riddell J Jhun P Fung CC Comes J Sawtelle S Tabatabai R Joseph D Shoenberger J Chen E Fee C Swadron SP Does the flipped classroom improve learning in graduate medical education? J Grad Med Educ 2017 08 9 4 491 6 10.4300/JGME-D-16-00817.1 28824764 Customer: JGME-D-16-00817 PMC5559246 Rui Z Lian-Rui X Rong-Zheng Y Jing Z Xue-Hong W Chuan Z Friend or foe? Flipped classroom for undergraduate electrocardiogram learning: a randomized controlled study BMC Med Educ 2017 03 07 17 1 53 10.1186/s12909-017-0881-8 28270204 10.1186/s12909-017-0881-8 PMC5341445 Sajid MR Laheji AF Abothenain F Salam Y AlJayar D Obeidat A Can blended learning and the flipped classroom improve student learning and satisfaction in Saudi Arabia? Int J Med Educ 2016 09 04 7 281 5 10.5116/ijme.57a7.83d4 27591930 ijme.7.281285 PMC5018351 Sánchez JC López-Zapata DF Pinzón ÓA García AM Morales MD Trujillo SE Effect of flipped classroom methodology on the student performance of gastrointestinal and renal physiology entrants and repeaters BMC Med Educ 2020 11 02 20 1 401 10.1186/s12909-020-02329-5 33138817 10.1186/s12909-020-02329-5 PMC7607871 Seidi M Ramezani-Aliakbari F Doosti-Irani A Effectiveness of the flipped classroom method using clinical scenarios and educational technology versus subject-based lectures in a gastrointestinal physiology course for medical students BMC Med Educ 2024 08 09 24 1 858 10.1186/s12909-024-05863-8 39123163 10.1186/s12909-024-05863-8 PMC11312676 Sezer B Abay E Looking at the impact of the flipped classroom model in medical education Scand J Educ Res 2018 04 17 63 6 853 68 10.1080/00313831.2018.1452292 Sezer B Elcin M Using traditional or flipped classrooms to teach “vascular access skill”: a pilot study to investigate the impact of the flipped classroom approach on students’ competencies Soc Sci J 2020 02 19 59 2 269 82 10.1016/j.soscij.2019.09.002 Shabani A Mohammadi A Mojtahedzadeh R Hosseini A Valadkhani S Sistani A Asadzandi S Rashidi H Does the sequence of flipped and lecture-based classes affect the academic achievement and satisfaction of medical students? J E-Learn Knowl Soc 2020 16 4 86 93 Shahid U Ahmer M Anjum K Mahmood N Athar Z Shahid A Medical education: comparison between flipped classroom and traditional classroom strategies in teaching human anatomy JIIMC 2024 19 1 48 54 10.4103/NJCA.NJCA_184_23 Shiau S Kahn LG Platt J Li C Guzman JT Kornhauser ZG Keyes KM Martins SS Evaluation of a flipped classroom approach to learning introductory epidemiology BMC Med Educ 2018 04 02 18 1 63 10.1186/s12909-018-1150-1 29609654 10.1186/s12909-018-1150-1 PMC5879803 Shoemaker EZ Johnson C Hilty DM Fung CC Flipping a single lecture in a survey course to active learning: do the benefits justify the costs? J Technol Behav Sci 2022 10 28 7 2 151 9 10.1007/s41347-021-00230-6 34729392 230 PMC8552619 Smith E Boscak A A virtual emergency: learning lessons from remote medical student education during the COVID-19 pandemic Emerg Radiol 2021 06 08 28 3 445 52 10.1007/s10140-020-01874-2 33420528 10.1007/s10140-020-01874-2 PMC7793389 Sourg HA Satti S Ahmed N Ahmed AB Impact of flipped classroom model in increasing the achievement for medical students BMC Med Educ 2023 04 27 23 1 287 10.1186/s12909-023-04276-3 37106403 10.1186/s12909-023-04276-3 PMC10142149 Street SE Gilliland KO McNeil C Royal K The flipped classroom improved medical student performance and satisfaction in a pre-clinical physiology course Med Sci Educ 2014 11 15 25 1 35 43 10.1007/s40670-014-0092-4 Tahir F Hafiz B Alnajjar T Almehmadi B Besharah B Gari A Katib Y Comparison of performance of medical students between two teaching modalities "flip the classroom" and traditional lectures: a single center educational interventional study Pak J Med Sci 2020 06 26 36 5 958 64 10.12669/pjms.36.5.2730 32704271 PJMS-36-958 PMC7372648 Tang F Chen C Zhu Y Zuo C Zhong Y Wang N Zhou L Zou Y Liang D Comparison between flipped classroom and lecture-based classroom in ophthalmology clerkship Med Educ Online 2017 11 02 22 1 1395679 10.1080/10872981.2017.1395679 29096591 PMC5678346 Teichgräber U Ingwersen M Mentzel HJ Aschenbach R Neumann R Franiel T Herzog AB Böttcher J Pfeil A Mensel B Kühnel C Freesmeyer M Fischer MR Zottmann J Impact of a heutagogical, multimedia-based teaching concept to promote self-determined, cooperative student learning in clinical radiology Rofo 2021 06 16 193 6 701 11 10.1055/a-1313-7924 33327029 Nassiri Toosi M Alizadeh M Khodadadegi M Armandei M Ajalooian Z Alikhani R Looking at the levels of Bloom's taxonomy in a flipped classroom utilizing study guide and interactive assignment for undergraduate medical students Acta Med Iran 2021 01 10 58 12 649 53 10.18502/acta.v58i12.5157 Tsao YP Yeh WY Hsu TF Chow LH Chen WC Yang YY Shulruf B Chen CH Cheng HM Implementing a flipped classroom model in an evidence-based medicine curriculum for pre-clinical medical students: evaluating learning effectiveness through prospective propensity score-matched cohorts BMC Med Educ 2022 03 16 22 1 185 10.1186/s12909-022-03230-z 35296297 10.1186/s12909-022-03230-z PMC8925289 Tune JD Sturek M Basile DP Flipped classroom model improves graduate student performance in cardiovascular, respiratory, and renal physiology Adv Physiol Educ 2013 12 37 4 316 20 10.1152/advan.00091.2013 24292907 37/4/316 Tusa N Sointu E Kastarinen H Valtonen T Kaasinen A Hirsto L Saarelainen M Mäkitalo K Mäntyselkä P Medical certificate education: controlled study between lectures and flipped classroom BMC Med Educ 2018 10 24 18 1 243 10.1186/s12909-018-1351-7 30355332 10.1186/s12909-018-1351-7 PMC6201511 Uchida S Shikino K Ishizuka K Yamauchi Y Yanagita Y Yokokawa D Tsukamoto T Noda K Uehara T Ikusaka M The flipped classroom is effective for medical students to improve deep tendon reflex examination skills: a mixed-method study PLoS One 2022 6 17 17 6 e0270136 10.1371/journal.pone.0270136 35714108 PONE-D-21-37240 PMC9205501 Veeramani R Madhugiri VS Chand P Perception of MBBS students to "flipped class room" approach in neuroanatomy module Anat Cell Biol 2015 06 48 2 138 43 10.5115/acb.2015.48.2.138 26140225 PMC4488642 Wang X Li J Wang C The effectiveness of flipped classroom on learning outcomes of medical statistics in a Chinese medical school Biochem Mol Biol Educ 2020 07 23 48 4 344 9 10.1002/bmb.21356 32575169 Wang T Sun C Mei YJ Hou CY Li ZJ Massive open online courses combined with flipped classroom: an approach to promote training of resident physicians in rheumatology Int J Gen Med 2021 08 Volume 14 4453 7 10.2147/ijgm.s325437 Wang A Xiao R Zhang C Yuan L Lin N Yan L Wang Y Yu J Huang Q Gan P Xiong C Xu Q Liao H Effectiveness of a combined problem-based learning and flipped classroom teaching method in ophthalmic clinical skill training BMC Med Educ 2022 06 23 22 487 10.1186/s12909-022-03538-w Weiwei B Xiao J Xiaoqiang Q Yujia K Chunzhen Z Practical exploration of the "rain classroom-flipped classroom" mode in basic chemistry course Adv Soc Sci Educ Humanit Res 2019 322 438 42 10.2991/iserss-19.2019.308 Yang C Yang X Yang H Fan Y Flipped classroom combined with human anatomy web-based learning system shows promising effects in anatomy education Medicine (Baltimore) 2020 11 13 99 46 e23096 10.1097/MD.0000000000023096 33181674 00005792-202011130-00042 PMC7668434 Yang F Lin W Wang Y Flipped classroom combined with case-based learning is an effective teaching modality in nephrology clerkship BMC Med Educ 2021 05 15 21 1 276 10.1186/s12909-021-02723-7 33990199 10.1186/s12909-021-02723-7 PMC8122572 Zhang XM Yu JY Yang Y Feng CP Lyu J Xu SL A flipped classroom method based on a small private online course in physiology Adv Physiol Educ 2019 09 01 43 3 345 9 10.1152/advan.00143.2018 31305152 Zhang W Gu J Li F Feng F Chen H Xing X Liu L The effect of flipped classroom in multiple clinical skills training for clinical interns on Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE) Med Educ Online 2022 12 13 27 1 2013405 10.1080/10872981.2021.2013405 34898400 PMC8676640 Zhang W Jiang M Zhao W Li S Li F Feng F Wang Y Li Y Liu L Evaluation of the effectiveness of using flipped classroom in puncture skills teaching BMC Med Educ 2024 02 23 24 1 176 10.1186/s12909-024-05132-8 38395791 10.1186/s12909-024-05132-8 PMC10885647 Zhang J Chen H Wang X Huang X Xie D Application of flipped classroom teaching method based on ADDIE concept in clinical teaching for neurology residents BMC Med Educ 2024 04 03 24 1 366 10.1186/s12909-024-05343-z 38570778 10.1186/s12909-024-05343-z PMC10988803 Zheng Z Yuan S Huang M Liao J Cai R Zhan H Yang Z Xiong Y Flipped classroom approach used in the training of mass casualty triage for medical undergraduate students Disaster Med Public Health Prep 2022 02 07 16 1 94 101 10.1017/dmp.2020.162 32762784 S1935789320001627 Zhong J Li Z Hu X Wang L Chen Y Effectiveness comparison between blended learning of histology practical in flipped physical classrooms and flipped virtual classrooms for MBBS students BMC Med Educ 2022 11 16 22 1 795 10.1186/s12909-022-03740-w 36384542 10.1186/s12909-022-03740-w PMC9668391 Zhou X Yu G Li X Zhang W Nian X Cui J Wei X Sun Y The application and influence of "small private online course" based on flipped classroom teaching model in the course of fundamental operations in surgery in China Sci Rep 2024 01 03 14 1 375 10.1038/s41598-023-50580-9 38172151 10.1038/s41598-023-50580-9 PMC10764302 Hattie J Visible Learning: The Sequel: A Synthesis of Over 2,100 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement 2023 Milton Park, UK Routledge Rose S Medical student education in the time of COVID-19 JAMA 2020 06 02 323 21 2131 2 10.1001/jama.2020.5227 32232420 2764138 Schmid RF Bernard RM Borokhovski E Tamim RM Abrami PC Surkes MA Wade CA Woods J The effects of technology use in postsecondary education: a meta-analysis of classroom applications Comput Educ 2014 03 72 271 91 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.11.002 van Alten DC Phielix C Janssen J Kester L Effects of flipping the classroom on learning outcomes and satisfaction: a meta-analysis Educ Res Rev 2019 11 28 100281 10.1016/j.edurev.2019.05.003 Khanova J Roth MT Rodgers JE McLaughlin JE Student experiences across multiple flipped courses in a single curriculum Med Educ 2015 10 18 49 10 1038 48 10.1111/medu.12807 26383075 Liebert CA Mazer L Bereknyei Merrell S Lin DT Lau JN Student perceptions of a simulation-based flipped classroom for the surgery clerkship: a mixed-methods study Surgery 2016 09 160 3 591 8 10.1016/j.surg.2016.03.034 27262534 S0039-6060(16)30053-8 Ramnanan CJ Pound LD Advances in medical education and practice: student perceptions of the flipped classroom Adv Med Educ Pract 2017 01 Volume 8 63 73 10.2147/amep.s109037 Mehta NB Hull AL Young JB Stoller JK Just imagine: new paradigms for medical education Acad Med 2013 10 88 10 1418 23 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182a36a07 23969368 Marsh HW Distinguishing between good (useful) and bad workloads on students’ evaluations of teaching Am Educ Res J 2001 01 01 38 1 183 212 10.3102/00028312038001183 Oudbier J Spaai G Timmermans K Boerboom T Enhancing the effectiveness of flipped classroom in health science education: a state-of-the-art review BMC Med Educ 2022 01 12 22 1 34 10.1186/s12909-021-03052-5 35022002 10.1186/s12909-021-03052-5 PMC8753844 Gallardo NE Caleya AM Sánchez ME Feijóo G Learning of paediatric dentistry with the flipped classroom model Eur J Dent Educ 2022 05 26 26 2 302 9 10.1111/eje.12704 34143520 Smith EB Boscak A Friedman EM Frand S Deitte LA Benefield T Jordan S Radiology medical student education 2020: surveys of the alliance of medical student educators in radiology and medical students Acad Radiol 2022 02 29 2 298 311 10.1016/j.acra.2021.01.003 33516589 S1076-6332(21)00009-X PMC8735856 Uttl B White CA Gonzalez DW Meta-analysis of faculty's teaching effectiveness: student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related Stud Educ Eval 2017 09 54 22 42 10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007 Stroebe W Why good teaching evaluations may reward bad teaching: on grade inflation and other unintended consequences of student evaluations Perspect Psychol Sci 2016 11 28 11 6 800 16 10.1177/1745691616650284 27899725 11/6/800 Boring A Ottoboni K Stark PB Cetinkaya-Rundel M Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness ScienceOpen Research 2016 2025-06-05 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344714233_Student_Evaluations_of_Teaching_Mostly_Do_Not_Measure_Teaching_Effectiveness Della Ratta CB Flipping the classroom with team-based learning in undergraduate nursing education Nurse Educ 2015 40 2 71 4 10.1097/NNE.0000000000000112 25402712 Missildine K Fountain R Summers L Gosselin K Flipping the classroom to improve student performance and satisfaction J Nurs Educ 2013 10 52 10 597 9 10.3928/01484834-20130919-03 24044386 Spooren P Brockx B Mortelmans D On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: the state of the art Rev Educ Res 2013 12 01 83 4 598 642 10.3102/0034654313496870 Centra JA Will teachers receive higher student evaluations by giving higher grades and less course work? Res High Educ 2003 44 495 518 10.1023/A:1025492407752 Greenwald AG Gillmore GM No pain, no gain? The importance of measuring course workload in student ratings of instruction J Educ Psychol 1997 89 4 743 51 10.1037//0022-0663.89.4.743