SynthesisPloS one2021
Effectiveness of blended learning in pharmacy education: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Identifying Research Priorities in Digital Education for Health Care: Umbrella Review and Modified Delphi Method Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of blended learning in pharmacy education: An experimental study using clinical research modules.PloS one · 2021Trial
- Reforming pedagogy in biotechnology pharmaceutics education: a narrative review of emerging teaching strategies.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- AI-assisted vs. textbook-based vs. blended learning for acute abdomen diagnosis: a retrospective cohort study of emergency interns.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Protocol: Effectiveness of Sexual and Reproductive Health Blended Learning Approaches for Capacity Strengthening of Health Professionals in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Considerations for conducting a scoping review in pharmacy education.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2024Article
- Comparison of the teaching clinical biochemistry in face-to-face and the flex-flipped classroom to medical and dental students: a quasi-experimental study from IRAN.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Effect of a curriculum transformation on pharmacy student self-efficacy, self-reported activities, and satisfaction in degree and career choice.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- A silver lining for pandemic-weary libraries: How blended and flipped instructional programs have improved upon pre-pandemic norms.Journal of academic librarianship · 2022Article
- Student Pharmacists' Perspectives of In-Person versus Virtual Research Poster Presentations.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Instructor-Blinded Study of Pharmacy Student Learning When a Flipped Online Classroom Was Implemented during the COVID-19 Pandemic.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
objectiveThough blended learning (BL), is widely adopted in higher education, evaluating effectiveness of BL is difficult because the components of BL can be extremely heterogeneous. Purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of BL in improving knowledge and skill in pharmacy education.
methodsPubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify published literature. The retrieved studies from databases were screened for its title and abstracts followed by the full-text in accordance with the pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Methodological quality was appraised by modified Ottawa scale. Random effect model used for statistical modelling. KEY
findingsA total of 26 studies were included for systematic review. Out of which 20 studies with 4525 participants for meta-analysis which employed traditional teaching in control group. Results showed a statistically significant positive effect size on knowledge (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91 to 1.78, p<0.00001) and skill (SMD: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.19 to 1.16; p = 0.006) using a random effect model. Subgroup analysis of cohort studies showed, studies from developed countries had a larger effect size (SMD: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.06), than studies from developing countries(SMD: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.65, studies with MCQ pattern as outcome assessment had larger effect size (SMD: 2.81, 95% CI: 1.76 to 3.85) than non-MCQs (SMD 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.74), and BL with case studies (SMD 2.72, 95% CI 1.86-3.59) showed better effect size than non-case-based studies (SMD: 0.22, CI: 0.02 to 0.41).
conclusionBL is associated with better academic performance and achievement than didactic teaching in pharmacy education.
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.