ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2021
Comparing the effectiveness of blended learning and traditional learning in an orthopedics course.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of blended learning versus conventional didactic teaching in pathology education outcomes.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Anticipated Acceptability of Blended Learning Among Lay Health Care Workers in Malawi: Qualitative Analysis Guided by the Technology Acceptance Model.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Article
- Orthopedic Undergraduate Education in India: Need for a Change.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2022Article
- Digitalization in Medicine: Are German Medical Students Well Prepared for the Future?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Research on the Mixed Education Mode for the Safety Engineering Major during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Epidemic.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is forcing medical schools to replace substantial parts of the traditional lecture method with online formats to maintain social distancing guidelines and reduce face-to-face contact in the classroom. To our knowledge, there have to date been few studies comparing the effectiveness of traditional teaching with blended teaching based on the students' final grades which the efficacy of online learning is still controversial, and this study aimed to compare the efficacy of blended teaching with conventional teaching in an orthopedics course.
methodsThis study was a retrospective cohort study based on data collected from fifth-year medical students between April 2019 and March 2021. The students were divided into two groups which based on years of study. The summative assessment was based on summing the MCQs plus KFs, the MEQ plus oral exam, OSCE, simulated patient chart reviews, and OPD work. All students took the same end-of-course quizzes with no differences between the groups regarding the kinds of knowledge tested. The results of these quizzes were used to compare the effectiveness of the conventional teaching in 2019 and the blended teaching in 2020. The paired
resultsA total of 252 students were enrolled in the study, of whom 128 and 124 students were in the traditional teaching group or blended teaching groups, respectively. The grade point averages of the students were 3.2 ± 0.4 and 3.3 ± 0.4 in 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, respectively, without significant difference (p-value = 0.06). The scores in the blended learning group were higher than in the traditional learning group in all assessment tools (MCQ, KF, Oral, and OSCE scores) except the MEQ.
conclusionsBlended learning was not less effective than traditional learning for teaching medical students.
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.