Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37559108›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2023

Online case-based learning in medical education: a scoping review.

Rebecca Donkin, Heather Yule, Trina Fyfe

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Rebecca DonkinSchool of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Sunshine Coast Health Institute, 6 Doherty St, Birtinya, Qld, 4575, Australia. rdonkin@usc.edu.au.
Heather YuleDepartment of Cellular and Physiological Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 2350 Health Sciences Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada.
Trina FyfeDivision of Medical Sciences, University of British Columbia, 3333 University Way, Prince George, BC, V2N 4Z9, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCase-Based Learning (CBL) in medical education is a teaching approach that engages students as learners through active learning in small, collaborative groups to solve cases from clinical patients. Due to the challenges afforded by the COVID-19 pandemic, small group learning such as CBL, transitioned quickly to include technology-enhanced learning to enable distance delivery, with little information on how to apply pedagogical frameworks and use learning theories to design and deliver online content.

methodsTo extend understanding of online CBL a scoping review protocol following the PRISMA-ScR framework explored the literature that describes the use of online CBL application in medical education and the outcomes, perceptions, and learning theories. A literature search was conducted in January 2022 followed by a subsequent review in October 2022. After peer review using the PRESS guidelines, the CASP appraisal tool was used to assess the rigor of each study design.

resultsThe scoping review identified literature published between 2010 and 2022 (n = 13 articles), on online CBL in the field of medical education with 11 observational studies describing student and facilitator perceptions and two randomized controlled studies. Positive perceptions of online learning included a flexible work-life balance, connection with learners, and improved accessibility. Negative experiences of online CBL included poor internet access, a distracting learning environment, and loss of communication. In the studies that collected student performance data, results showed equivalent or improved outcomes compared to the control. The CASP appraisal tool highlighted the deficiencies in most study designs, lack of framework or learning theory, and poor reproducibility of the methods to answer the research questions.

conclusionThis scoping review identified literature to describe the academic outcomes, and student and facilitator perceptions of online CBL in medical education. However, the CASP tool uncovered deficiencies in study descriptions and design leading to poor quality evidence in this area. The authors provide recommendations for frameworks and learning theories for the future implementation of online CBL.

Indexed as

COVID-19Education, DistanceEducation, MedicalHumansPandemicsReproducibility of ResultsCase Based LearningMedicineOnline delivery

Identifiers

PMID37559108
PMCPMC10413534

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.