ArticleHeliyon2021
Evaluating learning of medical students through recorded lectures in clinical courses.
Article in Heliyon, 2021. 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.
- Article
- Article
- Has pedagogy, technology, and Covid-19 killed the face-to-face lecture?Anatomical sciences education · 2022Article
- Opinion of medical students and instructors on the challenges of in-person learning postcoronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.Journal of family & community medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One solution offered by technology is learning through recorded lectures (RLs). The main objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of online RLs in learning of clinical courses at a School of Medicine. The study comprised four phases: (i) pre-post uncontrolled study to evaluate knowledge gain with RLs, (ii) non-randomised crossover study to compare learning with RL before or after a face-to-face lecture (FL), (iii) focus groups to evaluate perceptions from students about RLs and, (iv) randomised controlled trial to verify whether the addition of questions every 10 min and a summary webpage to an RL improve knowledge. Results showed that knowledge gain occurred through RLs and was similar to FLs. Additionally, either watching an RL after attending an FL or vice versa showed comparable additional knowledge gain. Furthermore, students were in favour of the use of RLs but not as a replacement of FLs. At last, the insertion of questions and a summary in RLs meant no additional knowledge gain. In conclusion, it is feasible to learn through RLs in clinical courses, but the importance given to FLs suggests adopting blended learning.
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.