Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31443705›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2019

The utilization of peer feedback during collaborative learning in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review.

Sarah Lerchenfeldt, Misa Mi, Marty Eng

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04783259 (Exploring the Views of Medical Students on Medical Escape Room Experiences With Narrow Learning Objectives and Structured Debriefings), which is not on this map. Cited by 54 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04783259 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Exploring the Views of Medical Students on Medical Escape Room Experiences With Narrow Learning Objectives and Structured Debriefings

TypeinterventionalSponsorCopenhagen Academy for Medical Education and SimulationRan2021 to 2021Enrolled45ConditionsInteractive TeachingArmsStructured approach
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sarah LerchenfeldtDepartment of Foundational Medical Studies, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, O'Dowd Hall, Room 466, 586 Pioneer Drive, Rochester, MI, 48309, USA. lerchenfeldt@oakland.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1383-4456
Misa MiDepartment of Foundational Medical Studies, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Kresge Library, #130, 100 Library Drive, Rochester, MI, 48309, USA.
Marty EngDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Cedarville University, HSC 235, 251 N Main St, Cedarville, OH, 45314, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeer evaluation can provide valuable feedback to medical students, and increase student confidence and quality of work. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the utilization, effectiveness, and quality of peer feedback during collaborative learning in medical education.

methodsThe PRISMA statement for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analysis was used to guide the process of conducting the systematic review. Evaluation of level of evidence (Colthart) and types of outcomes (Kirkpatrick) were used. Two main authors reviewed articles with a third deciding on conflicting results.

resultsThe final review included 31 studies. Problem-based learning and team-based learning were the most common collaborative learning settings. Eleven studies reported that students received instruction on how to provide appropriate peer feedback. No studies provided descriptions on whether or not the quality of feedback was evaluated by faculty. Seventeen studies evaluated the effect of peer feedback on professionalism; 12 of those studies evaluated its effectiveness for assessing professionalism and eight evaluated the use of peer feedback for professional behavior development. Ten studies examined the effect of peer feedback on student learning. Six studies examined the role of peer feedback on team dynamics.

conclusionsThis systematic review indicates that peer feedback in a collaborative learning environment may be a reliable assessment for professionalism and may aid in the development of professional behavior. The review suggests implications for further research on the impact of peer feedback, including the effectiveness of providing instruction on how to provide appropriate peer feedback.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, UndergraduateFormative FeedbackStudents, MedicalHumansPeer GroupProblem-Based LearningProfessionalismTeaching

Identifiers

PMID31443705
PMCPMC6708197

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.