Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32773378›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2020

Blended Learning Compared to Traditional Learning in Medical Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Alexandre Vallée, Jacques Blacher, Alain Cariou, Emmanuel Sorbets

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 245 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
245citing papers in PubMed, 12 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

245 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Hands-on Distance Simulation of Technical Skills: A Systematic Review.Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Digital transfer in radiation oncology education for medical students-single-center data and systemic review of the literature.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2022
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

185 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Alexandre ValléeDiagnosis and Therapeutic Center, Hypertension and Cardiovascular Prevention Unit, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9158-4467
Jacques BlacherDiagnosis and Therapeutic Center, Hypertension and Cardiovascular Prevention Unit, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-4860-4279
Alain CariouCochin University Hospital, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-3258-4672
Emmanuel SorbetsDiagnosis and Therapeutic Center, Hypertension and Cardiovascular Prevention Unit, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0559-6301

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBlended learning, which combines face-to-face learning and e-learning, has grown rapidly to be commonly used in education. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this learning approach has not been completely quantitatively synthesized and evaluated using knowledge outcomes in health education.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of blended learning compared to that of traditional learning in health education.

methodsWe performed a systematic review of blended learning in health education in MEDLINE from January 1990 to July 2019. We independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and compared overall blended learning versus traditional learning, offline blended learning versus traditional learning, online blended learning versus traditional learning, digital blended learning versus traditional learning, computer-aided instruction blended learning versus traditional learning, and virtual patient blended learning versus traditional learning. All pooled analyses were based on random-effect models, and the I

resultsA total of 56 studies (N=9943 participants) assessing several types of learning support in blended learning met our inclusion criteria; 3 studies investigated offline support, 7 studies investigated digital support, 34 studies investigated online support, 8 studies investigated computer-assisted instruction support, and 5 studies used virtual patient support for blended learning. The pooled analysis comparing all blended learning to traditional learning showed significantly better knowledge outcomes for blended learning (standardized mean difference 1.07, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.28, I

conclusionsFrom this review, blended learning demonstrated consistently better effects on knowledge outcomes when compared with traditional learning in health education. Further studies are needed to confirm these results and to explore the utility of different design variants of blended learning.

Indexed as

Education, DistanceEducation, MedicalFemaleHumansMaleblended learningcomputer-aided instructionmeta-analysisonline learningtraditional learningvirtual patients

Identifiers

PMID32773378
PMCPMC7445617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.