Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42438533
Mazur's Peer Instruction in Medical Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Aldalou Mohammad, Kizer Asa, Hanley Jamison C, et al. · Medical science educator · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.1007/s40670-026-02744-1
Findings
5 findings
| Population | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medical and dental trainees | Mazur's Peer Instruction | Pretest (before peer discussion) | Within-session conceptual gain Within a single PI session · Undergraduate and graduate medical and dental education · Imputed pretest-posttest correlation r = 0.50 | SMD 1.521 [0.723, 2.320] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 477 participants |
| Medical and dental trainees | Mazur's Peer Instruction | Pretest (before peer discussion) | Within-session conceptual gain Within a single PI session · Undergraduate and graduate medical and dental education · Imputed pretest-posttest correlation r = 0.30 | SMD 1.525 [0.689, 2.361] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 477 participants |
| Medical and dental trainees | Mazur's Peer Instruction | Pretest (before peer discussion) | Within-session conceptual gain Within a single PI session · Undergraduate and graduate medical and dental education · Imputed pretest-posttest correlation r = 0.70 | SMD 1.481 [0.741, 2.220] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 477 participants |
| Medical and dental trainees | Mazur's Peer Instruction | Control instruction (mostly other active learning approaches) | Learning performance (end-of-session, block or semester assessments) Posttest, timing varied across studies · Undergraduate and graduate medical and dental education | SMD 0.725 [-0.092, 1.542] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 869 participants |
| Medical and dental learners | Mazur's Peer Instruction | None (single-arm proportion) | Proportion of learners perceiving PI as beneficial or helpful for learning Post-intervention · Undergraduate and graduate medical and dental education | Proportion 0.737 [0.617, 0.829] GRADE not reported 7 studies · 582 participants |
Included primary studies 17
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bian 2017 Peer instruction in a physiology laboratory course in China DOI:10.1152/advan.00153.2017 | 2018 | this review only | Within-session conceptual gain | not extracted yet |
| Bucheit 2015 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Carpenter 2020 Improved performance in and preference for using think‐pair‐share in a flipped classroom DOI:10.1111/medu.14085 | 2020 | this review only | Proportion of learners perceiving PI as beneficial or helpful for learning | not extracted yet |
| Fu 2022 Practice and exploration of the "student-centered" multielement fusion teaching mode in human anatomy DOI:10.1007/s00276-021-02866-8 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Mitsuhashi 2020 Evaluation of epidemiological lectures using peer instruction: focusing on the importance of ConcepTests DOI:10.7717/peerj.9640 | 2020 | this review only | Within-session conceptual gain | not extracted yet |
| Mitsuhashi 2021 DOI:10.18926/amo/62773 | NR | this review only | Proportion of learners perceiving PI as beneficial or helpful for learning | not extracted yet |
| Mohammad 2021 Peer instruction versus conventional group work-based teaching in a laboratory exercise on respiratory physiology: a randomized study DOI:10.1152/advan.00045.2021 | 2021 | this review only | Learning performance (end-of-session, block or semester assessments); Proportion of learners perceiving PI as beneficial or helpful for learning | not extracted yet |
| Petersen 2014 Collaborative strategies for teaching common acid-base disorders to medical students DOI:10.1152/advan.00106.2013 | 2014 | this review only | Proportion of learners perceiving PI as beneficial or helpful for learning | not extracted yet |
| Rao 2000 Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. DOI:10.1152/advances.2000.24.1.51 | 2000 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Rao 2001 ACTIVE LEARNING OF RESPIRATORY PHYSIOLOGY IMPROVES PERFORMANCE ON RESPIRATORY PHYSIOLOGY EXAMINATIONS DOI:10.1152/advances.2001.25.2.55 | 2001 | this review only | Learning performance (end-of-session, block or semester assessments) | not extracted yet |
| Scalise 2025 Does Peer Instruction Enhance Impact of Audience Response Systems for Content Retention? DOI:10.1002/jdd.13862 | 2025 | this review only | Learning performance (end-of-session, block or semester assessments); Proportion of learners perceiving PI as beneficial or helpful for learning | not extracted yet |
| Schuller 2015 Using Just-in-Time Teaching and Peer Instruction in a Residency Program’s Core Curriculum DOI:10.1097/acm.0000000000000578 | 2015 | this review only | Proportion of learners perceiving PI as beneficial or helpful for learning | not extracted yet |
| Southwick 2007 Theodore E. Woodward Award: spare me the PowerPoint and bring back the medical textbook. PMID:18528495 | 2007 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Trout 2014 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Vazquez-Garcia 2018 Collaborative-group testing improves learning and knowledge retention of human physiology topics in second-year medical students DOI:10.1152/advan.00113.2017 | 2018 | this review only | Within-session conceptual gain | not extracted yet |
| Versteeg 2019 Peer instruction improves comprehension and transfer of physiological concepts: a randomized comparison with self-explanation DOI:10.1007/s10459-018-9858-6 | 2018 | this review only | Within-session conceptual gain; Learning performance (end-of-session, block or semester assessments) | not extracted yet |
| Yelton 2017 Peer Instruction: an Analysis of Quality Improvement at Boonshoft School of Medicine (BSOM) DOI:10.1007/s40670-017-0480-7 | 2017 | this review only | Proportion of learners perceiving PI as beneficial or helpful for learning | not extracted yet |
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Undergraduate or graduate trainees in medical or dental education | Medical and dental learners (n=2,166; UME k=13, GME k=1, UME+graduate k=2, undergraduate dental k=1) |
| Intervention | Mazur's Peer Instruction framework or its core elements (conceptual questioning, peer discussion, instructor feedback) | Peer Instruction (n=17 studies) |
| Comparison | Broadly defined; comparative and within-group designs eligible | Pretest (within-group); control instruction (4 comparative studies) |
| Outcomes | Academic performance (exam scores), knowledge gain, learner perceptions | Within-session conceptual gains (k=4); performance vs control (k=4); learner perceptions (k=7) |
| Study designs | Quantitative primary studies (comparative and within-group designs) | 11 quasi-experimental, 4 RCTs, 2 historical cohort studies |
| Timing | Not specified | Single session to serial implementations of 2 to 45 sessions |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | No | No | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: No · NRSI: No | NRSI: No · RCT: No | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: No | NRSI: No · RCT: Yes | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |