Trial reportActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2023
Preparing for obstetric anaesthesia-An educational randomised controlled trial comparing e-learning to written course material.
Trial report in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Electronic learning methods compared to traditional learning methods in anaesthesia education: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Preparing for obstetric anaesthesia-An educational randomised controlled trial comparing e-learning to written course material.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2023Trial
- The evolution of anesthesiology education: Embracing new technologies and teaching approaches.Health science reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundE-learning is increasingly used in postgraduate medical education. Its numerous benefits include an enhanced learning experience through learning style individualisation, interactive elements, and assessment through tests and quizzes. Current meta-analyses conclude that the overall effectiveness of e-learning is comparable to traditional teaching modalities. However, studies demonstrating its benefits are heterogeneous and of varying quality. This randomised controlled trial aims to investigate whether contemporary e-learning completed prior to a course in obstetric anaesthesia prepares the course participants better than self-study of written course material.
methodsA randomised controlled trial allocated second-year resident anaesthetists to receive either e-learning in postpartum haemorrhage and written course material in preeclampsia or e-learning in preeclampsia and written course material in postpartum haemorrhage, prior to a compulsory course in obstetric anaesthesia. The primary outcome was knowledge after completion of e-learning before the course, assessed by type X multiple-choice questions with a score ranging from zero to 35. The secondary outcomes were anxiety level before course simulations, performance during course simulations, and knowledge four and 12 weeks after the course.
resultsThe per protocol analysis of the primary outcome included 45 participants and demonstrated a mean difference of 1.8 (95% CI 0.7-2.9; p = .002) in knowledge after completion of e-learning before the course, in favour of e-learning compared to written course material. There were no statistically significant differences in the secondary outcomes.
conclusionThis blinded parallel group randomised controlled trial found a numerically small but statistically significant difference in knowledge favouring e-learning over written course material.
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.