ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
Methodology of Specialist Physicians Training: From Traditional to e-Learning.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effects of e-learning vs. gamification-based training on ICU nurses' knowledge and attitudes toward organ donation candidates: a study based on the psychological security and empowerment model.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- E-Learning versus Face-to-Face Methodology for Learning Antimicrobial Resistance and Prescription Practice in a Tertiary Hospital of a Middle-Income Country.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Blended learning for accredited life support courses - A systematic review.Resuscitation plus · 2022Review
- Psychometric Properties for Multidimensional Cognitive Load Scale in an E-Learning Environment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Different studies show that mixed methodology can be effective in medical training. However, there are no conclusive studies in specialist training on advanced life support (ALS). The main objective of this research is to determine if, with mixed didactic methodology, which includes e-learning, similar results are produced to face-to-face training. The method used was quasi-experimental with a focus on efficiency and evaluation at seven months, in which 114 specialist doctors participated and where the analysis of the sociodemographic and pre-test variables points to the homogeneity of the groups. The intervention consisted of e-learning training plus face-to-face workshops versus standard. The results were the performance in knowledge and technical skills in cardiac arrest scenarios, the perceived quality, and the perception of the training. There were no significant differences in immediate or deferred performance. In the degree of satisfaction, a significant difference was obtained in favour of the face-to-face group. The perception in the training itself presented similar results. The main limitations consisted of sample volume, dropping out of the deferred tests, and not evaluating the transfer or the impact. Finally, mixed methodology including e-learning in ALS courses reduced the duration of the face-to-face sessions and allowed a similar performance.
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.