ReviewMedical science educator2021
The Use of Feedback in Improving the Knowledge, Attitudes and Skills of Medical Students: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Medical science educator, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Insights from a multinational survey on ERC courses: a cross-sectional analysis of participant and instructor perspectives.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Can Generative Artificial Intelligence Reliably Score Open-Ended Question Assessments in Undergraduate Medical Education?Medical science educator · 2026Article
- Development and psychometric evaluation of an instrument for medical students' self-assessment of professionalism: Reliability, content, and construct validity of the MediProf questionnaire.GMS journal for medical education · 2026Article
- Feedback Framework in Psychiatry Residency Training: A Cross-sectional Survey Amongst Psychiatry Post-graduate Residents of India.Indian journal of psychological medicine · 2025Article
- Navigating discourses of feedback: developing a pattern system of feedback.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2025Article
- The Best of Both Worlds: Exploring the Interplay Between Written and Verbal Feedback in the Continuum of Medical Education.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Does 'summative' count? The influence of the awarding of study credits on feedback use and test-taking motivation in medical progress testing.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2024Article
- The feedback dilemma in medical education: insights from medical residents' perspectives.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Acceptability of telemedicine for follow up after contraceptive implant initiation at an obstetrics and gynecologic training center.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Reconstructing feedback in graduate medical education: development of the REFLECT scale to measure feedback delivery in medical residency training.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Form for planning and elaborating high fidelity simulation scenarios: A validation study.PloS one · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of the use of different feedback modalities in improving the knowledge, attitudes, and skills of medical students compared to students receiving no feedback or unstructured feedback. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted based on a search of the Cochrane, ERIC, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. A total of 26 studies were included for the systematic review and 13 for the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that the use of feedback was associated with better results compared to control groups (SMD = 0.80 [0.56-1.04],
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.