SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2019
Medical Doctors' Offline Computer-Assisted Digital Education: Systematic Review by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Spaced Digital Education for Health Professionals: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Virtual Patient Simulations in Health Professions Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Digital Education of Health Professionals on the Management of Domestic Violence: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Offline Digital Education for Postregistration Health Professions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Digital Problem-Based Learning in Health Professions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Digital Education in Health Professions: The Need for Overarching Evidence Synthesis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Use of digital technologies for staff education and training programmes on newborn resuscitation and complication management: a scoping review.BMJ paediatrics open · 2024Article
- Natural Language Processing to Identify Digital Learning Tools in Postgraduate Family Medicine: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Digital Education for Health Professionals: An Evidence Map, Conceptual Framework, and Research Agenda.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Review
- Digital Education for the Management of Chronic Wounds in Health Care Professionals: Protocol for a Systematic Review by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.JMIR research protocols · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe widening gap between innovations in the medical field and the dissemination of such information to doctors may affect the quality of care. Offline computer-based digital education (OCDE) may be a potential solution to overcoming the geographical, financial, and temporal obstacles faced by doctors.
objectiveThe objectives of this systematic review were to evaluate the effectiveness of OCDE compared with face-to-face learning, no intervention, or other types of digital learning for improving medical doctors' knowledge, cognitive skills, and patient-related outcomes. Secondary objectives were to assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) of OCDE and any adverse effects.
methodsWe searched major bibliographic databases from 1990 to August 2017 to identify relevant articles and followed the Cochrane methodology for systematic reviews of intervention.
resultsOverall, 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 cluster RCT (cRCT), and 1 quasi-RCT were included in this review. The total number of participants was 1690 in addition to the cRCT, which included 24 practices. Due to the heterogeneity of the participants, interventions, and outcomes, meta-analysis was not feasible, and the results were presented as narrative summary. Compared with face-to-face learning, the effect of OCDE on knowledge gain is uncertain (ratio of the means [RM] range 0.95-1.17; 8 studies, 495 participants; very low grade of evidence). From the same comparison, the effect of OCDE on cognitive skill gain is uncertain (RM range 0.1-0.9; 8 studies, 375 participants; very low grade of evidence). OCDE may have little or no effect on patients' outcome compared with face-to-face education (2 studies, 62 participants; low grade of evidence). Compared with no intervention, OCDE may improve knowledge gain (RM range 1.36-0.98; 4 studies, 401 participants; low grade of evidence). From the same comparison, the effect of OCDE on cognitive skill gain is uncertain (RM range 1.1-1.15; 4 trials, 495 participants; very low grade of evidence). One cRCT, involving 24 practices, investigated patients' outcome in this comparison and showed no difference between the 2 groups with low-grade evidence. Compared with text-based learning, the effect of OCDE on cognitive skills gain is uncertain (RM range 0.91-1.46; 3 trials with 4 interventions; 68 participants; very low-grade evidence). No study in this comparison investigated knowledge gain or patients' outcomes. One study assessed the CE and showed that OCDE was cost-effective when compared with face-to-face learning if the cost is less than or equal to Can $200. No trial evaluated the adverse effect of OCDE.
conclusionsThe effect of OCDE compared with other methods of education on medical doctors' knowledge and cognitive skill gain is uncertain. OCDE may improve doctors' knowledge compared with no intervention but its effect on doctors' cognitive skills is uncertain. OCDE may have little or no effect in improving patients' outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.