Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36407129›Full record

ReviewCureus2022

A Systematic Review of the Medical Student Feedback on Undergraduate Surgical Education During the Pandemic.

Abdel Saed

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Abdel SaedOrthopaedics, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged and changed significant aspects of day-to-day life. With regard to medical education, the challenges have been substantial, and the changes have been innovative. This systematic review focuses specifically on medical student feedback on undergraduate surgical education during the pandemic. It explores the various types of technology used to facilitate online learning and aims to comprehensively review the advantages and disadvantages. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were adhered to, and electronic databases PubMed, Medline, and Scopus were used to identify relevant studies. The search yielded 102 papers once duplicates and non-English articles were removed. Of these, 19 articles were included in the review. These publications were appraised, which was the source of the narrative syntheses of this systematic review, and due to the heterogeneous data, a meta-analysis could not be successfully implemented. The integration of real-time image capture devices used to display stakeholders or objects such as models of wounds has resulted in the improvement of virtual learning to an almost in-person experience. Adding to this, the use of communication and participation platforms facilitates active discussion when used appropriately. However, there are still some barriers that may be removed with time as the technology continually improves, and these are not exclusive to connectivity issues and restriction of the senses to only two-dimensional sight and hearing. Despite this, the student feedback was largely positive, and the integration of more innovative methods of delivering teaching will have a positive impact on education as long as it is used as an adjunct and not as a replacement for face-to-face teaching.

Indexed as

augmented reality (ar)online teachingsimulated trainingteaching feedbackvirtual education

Identifiers

PMID36407129
PMCPMC9671270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.