ArticleJMIR research protocols2022
Natural Language Processing to Identify Digital Learning Tools in Postgraduate Family Medicine: Protocol for a Scoping Review.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Learning Tools in Postgraduate Family Medicine Training: A Scoping Review.Family medicine · 2025Article
- The impact of adolescent innovation on academic resilience, distance learning self-efficacy, and academic performance.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- BERT-Based Neural Network for Inpatient Fall Detection From Electronic Medical Records: Retrospective Cohort Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the growing need for digital learning tools in postgraduate family medicine training. Family medicine departments must understand and recognize the use and effectiveness of digital tools in order to integrate them into curricula and develop effective learning tools that fill gaps and meet the learning needs of trainees.
objectiveThis scoping review will aim to explore and organize the breadth of knowledge regarding digital learning tools in family medicine training.
methodsThis scoping review follows the 6 stages of the methodological framework outlined first by Arksey and O'Malley, then refined by Levac et al, including a search of published academic literature in 6 databases (MEDLINE, ERIC, Education Source, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science) and gray literature. Following title and abstract and full text screening, characteristics and main findings of the included studies and resources will be tabulated and summarized. Thematic analysis and natural language processing (NLP) will be conducted in parallel using a 9-step approach to identify common themes and synthesize the literature. Additionally, NLP will be employed for bibliometric and scientometric analysis of the identified literature.
resultsThe search strategy has been developed and launched. As of October 2021, we have completed stages 1, 2, and 3 of the scoping review. We identified 132 studies for inclusion through the academic literature search and 127 relevant studies in the gray literature search. Further refinement of the eligibility criteria and data extraction has been ongoing since September 2021.
conclusionsIn this scoping review, we will identify and consolidate information and evidence related to the use and effectiveness of existing digital learning tools in postgraduate family medicine training. Our findings will improve the understanding of the current landscape of digital learning tools, which will be of great value to educators and trainees interested in using existing tools, innovators looking to design digital learning tools that meet current needs, and researchers involved in the study of digital tools.
trial registrationOSF Registries osf.io/wju4k; https://osf.io/wju4k INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/34575.
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.