Is computer-assisted instruction more effective than other educational methods in achieving ECG competence amongst medical students and residents? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

objectivesIt remains unclear whether computer-assisted instruction (CAI) is more effective than other teaching methods in acquiring and retaining ECG competence among medical students and residents.

designThis systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Electronic literature searches of PubMed, databases via EBSCOhost, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and grey literature were conducted on 28 November 2017. We subsequently reviewed the citation indexes for articles identified by the search. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if a comparative research design was used to evaluate the efficacy of CAI versus other methods of ECG instruction, as determined by the acquisition and/or retention of ECG competence of medical students and/or residents. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data from all eligible studies and assessed the risk of bias. After duplicates were removed, 559 papers were screened. Thirteen studies met the eligibility criteria. Eight studies reported sufficient data to be included in the meta-analysis.

resultsIn all studies, CAI was compared with face-to-face ECG instruction. There was a wide range of computer-assisted and face-to-face teaching methods. Overall, the meta-analysis found no significant difference in acquired ECG competence between those who received computer-assisted or face-to-face instruction. However, subanalyses showed that CAI in a blended learning context was better than face-to-face teaching alone, especially if trainees had unlimited access to teaching materials and/or deliberate practice with feedback. There was no conclusive evidence that CAI was better than face-to-face teaching for longer-term retention of ECG competence.

conclusionCAI was not better than face-to-face ECG teaching. However, this meta-analysis was constrained by significant heterogeneity amongst studies. Nevertheless, the finding that blended learning is more effective than face-to-face ECG teaching is important in the era of increased implementation of e-learning. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017067054.