ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2023
E-learning modules to improve clinical reasoning and practice: a prospective comparative study.
Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- E-Learning Modules Based on Bloom Taxonomy and the Miller Pyramid for First-Year Indian Medical Students: Randomized Controlled Study in Medical Education.JMIR human factors · 2026Trial
- Strengthening Patient-Safety in ERAS Pathways: An Evidence-Informed Framework for Simulation-Based Nursing Practice Development in Acute Surgical Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Results of a patient engagement training for health advisors: a study of self-perceived competency enhancements.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Willingness of Academic Stakeholders for using a Mobile Application for Learning of Community Medicine by Undergraduate Medical Students and Its Predictors - A Mixed-methods Study from Bhopal, India.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social MedicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Controversy remains about whether e-learning can improve clinical competences. Our study aimed to compare the effects of e-learning versus traditional education on medical students' reasoning and how they applied their knowledge to clinical competences, assess factors associated with e-learning that might influence exam scores, and evaluate medical students' satisfaction with these two learning methods. Methods: Prospective study of 299 medical students in two fourth-year pediatric clerkship cohorts (2016-17 and 2017-18) in Switzerland. Results: We found no evidence of a difference in students' reasoning or how they applied their knowledge to competences in clinical case resolution, whether they had followed e-learning modules or attended traditional lectures. The number of quizzes taken and being female were factors associated with better scores. Even though overall satisfaction with the two learning methods was similar, students claimed that they learned more in e-learning than in traditional lectures and that e-learning explained learning objectives better. Conclusions: E-learning could be used as a supplement or alternative to traditional face-to-face medical teaching methods without compromising teaching quality. E-learning modules should be better integrated into medical students' curricula but avoid the risk of curriculum overload, especially in case of repeated COVID-like context.
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.