Trial reportPloS one2023
How has medical student learning changed with the pivot to online delivery of ophthalmology in the pandemic?
Trial report in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Comparison of the conceive-design-implement-operate model and lecture-based learning in teaching the "healthcare-associated infections" course.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- A comparative study on the effectiveness of online and in-class team-based learning on student performance and perceptions in virtual simulation experiments.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Non-technical factors on ophthalmology education: a narrative review.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to measure stakeholder satisfaction with our usual delivery format, which previously relied on a blend of didactic lectures and clinical skills sessions compared to a revised format, which had more emphasis on online learning. We hypothesised that the online flipped classroom (OFC) would facilitate delivery of content in the wake of the pandemic, and result in improved levels of student satisfaction and knowledge gain.
designNon randomised intervention study. Group 1 = Traditional delivery (TD) and Group 2 = OFC group.
methodsA validated course evaluation questionnaire (CEQ) compared perspectives of teaching faculty (n = 5) and students with the traditional delivery (TD) of the 4th year ophthalmology clinical attachment and an OFC approach (TD n = 129 v OFC n = 114).
resultsThe OFC group (n = 114; response rate = 24.6%) reported significantly reduced satisfaction with staff motivation of students and provision of feedback, compared to TD (n = 129; response rate = 17.8%). OFC students also felt it was harder to determine what standard of work was expected and found the course less beneficial at helping develop problem-solving skills. Students were dissatisfied with the level of choice afforded by the OFC, specifically how they would learn and assessment options. No significant difference in exam score was observed between the TD and OFC groups. For faculty (n = 5), there was no evidence of a difference between OFC and TD.
conclusionsStudents indicated a preference for the TD compared to the OFC approach. However, both delivery approaches led to comparable student performances as determined by MCQ examination.
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.